Holding

The writ petition was rightly dismissed because the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, and the High Court's exercise of discretion under Article 226 was proper.

Summary

The Collector of Raipur published a preliminary electoral roll for the municipal elections and issued a notice under Rule 4(1) allowing claims or objections within 20 days, although Rule 4(3) prescribed a 30‑day period. Several petitioners discovered the discrepancy only in early December and filed a writ petition under Article 226 on December 28, 1978, seeking to quash the electoral roll, the calendar of events, and the election results. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had delayed unreasonably and that such delay barred relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in exercising its discretionary power to reject the petition for inordinate delay. It affirmed that the High Court acted within its discretion, noting that the petitioners could have approached the Collector or the State Government under Rules 5 and 6, or filed a writ immediately after the notice, but failed to do so. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay in filing under Article 226 of the Constitution
Whether the defect in the notice under Rule 4(1) (prescribing 20 days instead of 30 days) invalidates the electoral roll and the election results

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 226
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1963s. Rule 4(1), s. Rule 4(3), s. Rule 46, s. Rule 5, s. Rule 6, s. Rule 8

Subjects

Article 226electoral rollmunicipal electionsdelaywrit jurisdictiondiscretionrule violationelection validityMadhya Pradeshmunicipal corporation

Judgment

491

ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. A
-
'" v.

. COLLECTOR, RAIPUR & ORS .
September 4, 1979
B
[A. C. GUPTA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
t
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 226 & Madhya Pradesh Municipal Cor-
•
' 1 poration ,.(Preparation, Revi.rion and Publication of Electoral Roll.r and Selec-
rion of Councillors) Rule.r 1963, Rules 4(1), 4(3)-Notification i.Jsued
:;tipulated 20 days tin1e for filing objections to electoral roll-Rule provided
30 day3-Writ Petition filed three days before, election ilnpugning electoral
roll-Writ if could be i:r.rued. ,
c
On September 30, 1978 the Collector published the preliminary electoral
roll under Rule 4(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Prepa-
ration, Revision and Publication of Electoral Roll! and Selection of Councillors)
Rules, 1963 for the purpose of holding elections in December, 1978 to the
Municipal Corporation, and also issued a notice under the said rule inviting
claims or objections to be filed within twenty days from the date of publication
D
-of the notice. A period of 30 days v.·as however actually provided in the
rule. The final publication of the electoral roll was made on November 16,
1978. After November 25, 1978 a large number of nominations were received
by the Returning Officer and the. final list of candidates for the elections with
their symbols was published on December 20, 1978 and the poll took place
on December 31, 1978.
E
The appellants (Petitioners 1, 5 and 6) along with some other.5 in their
writ petition. filed on December 28, 1978 contended that the entire election
process had become vitiated on account of the defect in the notice issued
'by the Collector under Rule 4(1) providiQ_g. 20 days for pre~erring claims
.and objections while tho rule prescribed 30 days and that by non-compliance
with this mandatory requirement, the entire election process held on the p
'basis of the defective electoral roll, became a nullity and iherefore the decla-
ration of results of the successful candidates was liable to be quashed.

The High Court held that the appellanbl were not entitled to any relief
.as they had approachr.<l the Court after undue del;ay.

Dismissing the appeals this Court,
G
HELD : I. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under
Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary and
if the High Court finds that there· is no satisfactory explanation for the in-
ordinate delay, it may reject the petition if it finds that the issue of writ
will lead to public inconvenience and interference with rights of others. This
rule applielll also to a case in which the validity of an election to a local
:authority is challenged. The question ¥.'hetber in a given case the delay H
involved is such that it disentitles a person to relief under Art. 226 is a
matter within the discretion of the High Court which as in all matters of
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A discretion has to exercise it judiciously and reasonably having regard to th.-
surrounding circunistances. [497C-D]
.\_ '
2. If the appellants felt that the notice . under Rule 4 ( 3) suffered from
any illegality, they could have brought it to the notice of the Collector
irrimediately therea.fter. It was open to th'em to move the State Government ...
under Rule 6 of the Rules to make an order directing the Collector to follo\\'
B the provisions governing the preparation of the electoral roll. It was also
open to them to file a writ petition immediately after the publication of the {
said notice questioning its legality. None of the above courses was adopted
by the appellants. Persons \Vhose claims· were rejected could have filed an
appeal under Rule 5 before the Collector. No such appeal was presented.
l
c
[495H-496B]
3. It was only on December 5, 1978 for the first time a letter was
addressed by one · of the petitioners to the Collector drawing his attention
to th~ error that had crept into the notice under Rule 4(1) of the Rules.
By that time, the nominations had all been received. The final list of candi-
'
dates for the election with their symbols was published on December 20,
1978. The writ petition itself was filed on December 28, 1978 when the poll
had to take place on December 31, 1978. No satisfactory explanation was
given in the course of the petition by the petitioners as to why they delayed'
D the filing of the petition till December 28, 1978, even though they knew that
there was an error in the notice issued under Rule 4(1). [496C-EJ

ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1617 and-
1640A of 1979. -
•
E Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
20-1-19-79 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition
No. 884 of 1978.
R. P. Bhatt and Sri Narain for the Appellant (In CA 1617/79).
G. L. Sahu and Miss Maya Rao for the Appellant (In CA 1640A/
F 79) and R. 54 in CA 1617/79.
Shiv Shankar Rao, H. K. Puri, V. K. Bahl and Miss Madhu Mool-- •
chandani For RR 7-10, 13, 14, 16, 18-25, 27-29, 33-36, 39-42, 45,
49 and 50 in CA 1617 and for RR 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18-25, 27-29,-
- 33-36, 39-42, 45, 49 & 50 in C.A. 1640A/79. -~
'
G S. K. Gambhir for RR. 5-6 in CA 1617/79.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. For the purpose of holding election to the·
Municipal Corporation of Raipur in the month of December, 1978
under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation-
H Act, 1956 (No. 23 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the
Collector of Raipur published the preliminary electoral roll on·
September 30, 1978 und_er Rule 4(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Munici--
A. K. MISHRA v. COLLECTOR (Venkataramiah, J.) 493

pal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral
Rolls and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Rules') promulgated under the Act by the Madhya Pradesh
State Government and issued a public notice under Rule 4 (I) of the
Rules calling upon persons whose names had not been included in the
electoral roll and who claimed to be included in it and persons who B
.. had any objection to the inclusion of the name of any person in the
said electoral roll to submit their claims and/ or objections within 20
days from the date of the publication of the said notice before Shri
K. P. Pande, Deputy Collector, Raipur who had been authorised to
pass orders on such claims or objections. It was also notified that
claims or objections which had not been preferred as required under c
the Rules within the prescribed period would be rejected. The final
publication of the electoral roll under Rule 8 of the Rules was done on
November 16, 1978. Thereafter the calendar of events was published
on November 25, 1978 notifying that the poll, if necessary would take
place on December 31, 1978 in all the 44 constituencies. Six peti-
tioners including the appellants herein presented a petition under D
Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur on December 28, 1978 requesting the Court to
make an order quashing the electoral roll and the calendar of events
issued for the purpose of the said election and directing the respondents
to refrain from conducting the poll on December 31, 1978. They
prayed for a further direction to be issued to the respondents calling E
upon them to hold the election after preparing the electoral roll afresh
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the, Rules. They also
prayed for the issue of an interim order staying the poll which had been
fixed to be held on December 31, 1978. On December 30, 1978, the
learned Single Judge before whom the case came up for orders
F
directed the issue of notice of the petition and the stay application to
the respondents and issued an interim order directing the respondents
not to notify the results of the election under Rule 46 of the Rules
pending disposal of the petition. On December 31, 1978, the poll was
held and 44 persons were declared elected. Their names were, how-
ever, not published under Rule 46 of the Rules in view of the interim G
, order made by the Court. Thereafter the successful candidates were
also impleaded as respondents and the petition was amended by the
inclusion "of an additional prayer that the declaration of the results of
the election should also be quashed. After the respondents filed their
counter affidavits, the petition was heard and it was dismissed by a
Division Bench of the High Court on January 20, 1979. Aggrieved by H
the order passed by the High Court, Ashok Kumar Mishra and
Bhagwat Singh Thakur (Petitioners No. 1 and· 5 respectively in the
13-531SCI/79
I 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R.
f
A petition before the High Court) filed a petition for special leave to
appeal to this Court and Purshottam Lal Sharma (petitioner No. 6
before the High Court) filed another petition. On special leave being
granted, the above petitions were registered as appeals.

One of the grounds on which the appellants challenged the validity
B of the electoral roll, the calendar of events and the declaration of
results of election was that the entire election process had become
vitiated on account of the defect in the notice issued under Rule 4(1)
of the Rules notifying that claims and objections should be preferred
within a period of 20 days from the date of the publication of that
notice when sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules prescribed that such
c claims and objections could be preferred within 30 days from the date
of publication of that notice. It was alleged that by reason of a shorter
period being fixed for entertaining claims and objections, a large
number of people who could have filed claims and objections were
prevented from preferring them within 30 days from the date of
publication of the notice which was the prescribed period. It was
D
alleged that petitioner No. 5 had filed a claim to include bis name in
the electoral roll on October 19, 1978 and that was rejected by the
Deputy Collector without following the procedure prescribed for the
purpose. It was also alleged that on October 20, 1978, 34 persons
mentioned in Annexure P-7 approached the Deputy Collector to
E entertain their claim for inclusion in the electoral roll and he refused r
to receive their applications. It was contended that on account of non-
compliance with Rule 4(3) of the Rules, which was mandatory, the
entire election process held on the basis of the defective electoral roll
became a nullity and that therefore, the declaration of results of all
the 44 successful candidates was liable to be quashed.
F
On behalf of the respondents, it was pleaded that while it was
true that the period of 20 days had been mentioned in the notice issued •
under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, it was open to all the persons who were
interested in preferring claims or objections to file them within 30 days
from the date of publication of the notice under Rule 4(1). It was
G pleaded that pursuant to the notice published under Rule 4( 1) of the
Rules only four claims including that of petitioner No. 5 were received
by the Deputy Collector; that all the applicants were asked to appear on
October 30, 1978 to substantiate their claim and that the applications
were disposed of on October 30, 1978. The claim of petitioner No. 5
was rejected as no evidence in support of his claim was produced before
H the Deputy Collector. It was further pleaded that no other claims or ob-
jections were preferred either on October 20, 1978 or on any other sub-
sequent date. The allegation that 34 persons had approached the Deputy
A. K. MISHRA V. COLLECTOR (Venkataramiah, J.) 495

Collector requesting him to receive their applications for inclusion of A
their names in the electoral roll on October 20, 1978 was denied.

. They further pleaded that the authorities would have taken action to
correct the error in the notice issued under Rule 4 ( 1) of the Rules
granting 20 days' time to prefer claims and objections if it had
been brought to their notice by the petitioners immediately after it wai;
B
noticed by them. The petitioners were not entitled to any relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution on account of the inordinate delay
involved in the presentation of the writ petition.

The High Court after hearing the parties dismissed the petition
holding (i) that respondent No. 2, the Deputy Collector had asked c
petitioner No. 5 to appear before him on October 30, 1978 and that
as he did not produce any evidence in support of his claim, his applica-
tion was dismissed, (ii) that none of the persons mentioned in
Annexurc P-7 preferred any claim before respondent No. 2 on
October 20, 1978 and that he did not refuse to receive any such claim
and that no person preferred any claim or objection after October D
19, 1978 before respondent No. 2 and (iii) that the petitioners were
not entitled to any relief as they had approached the Court after undue
delay.

Since one of the grounds on which the High Court dismissed the
petition was that the petitioners were not prompt in moving the High E
Court, we shall first examine whether the High Court was right in
doing so, since if we agree with the High Court on the above question,
it would become unnecessary to go into the other questions raised
before us.
F
\ The Collector published the notice under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules
on September 30, 1978 and also called upon interested persons to
prefer claims and/ or objections thereto within a period of 20 days. Jn
paragraph 7 of the notice, it was mentioned that claims and objections
received beyond the prescribed period would not be considered. The
period prescribed for preferring claims and objections under Rule G
4(3) was 30 days. It is not tbe case of the petitioners that they did
not know immediately after the publication of such notice that in the
said notice a period of 20 days had been mentioned in its preamble
as tbe period within which the claims and objections could be
preferred and in paragraph 7 thereof it had been stated that any such
claim or objection filed beyond the prescribed period was liable to be H
rejected. If they felt that the said notice suffered from any illegality,
they could have brought it to the notice of the Collector immediately
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A thereafter. It was open to them to move the State Government under
Rule 6 of the Rules to make an order directing the Collector to follow
the provisions governing the preparation of the electoral roll. It was
also open to them to file a writ petition immediately after the publica-
tion of the said notice questioning its legality. None of the above
B courses was adopted by the petitioners. Persons whose claims were
rejected could have filed an appeal under Rule 5 before the Collector.
No such appeal was presented. The final electoral roll was published
on November 16, 1978. It was notified that the nominations could
be filed on and after November 25, 1978 and the poll, if necessary,
c
would take place on December 31, 1978. After November 25, 1978,
c a large number of nominations were received by the Returning Officer.
It was only on December 5, 1978 for the first time that a letter was
addressed by petitioner No. 6 to the Collector drawing his attention to
the error that had crept into the notice published under Rule 4(1) of
the Rules. By that time, the nominations had all been received. The
final list of candidates for the election with their symbols was published
D on December 20, 1978. The writ petition itself was filed on December
28, 1978 when the poll had to take place on December 31, 1978.
When the petition came up for order on December 29, 1978, it had to
be adjourned to December 30, 1978 at the request of the counsel for
the petitioners. No satisfactory explanation was given in the course of
the petition by the petitioners as to why they delayed the filing of the r
E petition till December 28, 1978 even though they knew that there was
an error in the notice issued under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules in the
month of October, 1978 more than two months before the date on
which it was filed. It was, however, argued before us relying upon a
news item which had appeared in a daily called 'Nav-Bharat' dated
October 21, 1978 in which there was a reference to a statement made
F
by the Minister for Local Self Government of Madhya Pradesh
regarding the irregularity in the division of Raipur town into different
wards for purposes of election. It was also stated therein that in the
course of the discussion with the press-reporters on .that day, the_ )i.
Minister had stated that he had directed the Commissioner, Raipur
Division, Raipur that the date for inclusion of names in the electoral
G
roll could be extended if the election date was not affected. There was
•
a further reference to dates of election to Bilaspur Municipal Com-
mittee having been adjourned twice before. It is difficult to place any
reliance on the above news item for the purpose of concluding that
the Collector, Raipur had been informed about the defect in the notice
H issued under Rule 4(1) of the Rules by October 21, 1978. The other
documents produced alongwith the writ petition referred to omissions

-
of certain names from the electoral roll. They do not show that any
A. K. MISHRA v. COLLECTOR (Venkataramiah, J.) 497

of the petitioners had raised any objection with regard to the date A
within which the claims and objections could be preferred to the
electoral roll mentioned in the notice. We have, therefore, to proceed
on the basis that it was only on December 5, 1978 for the first time
that the attention of the Collector was drawn to the said error and
that the writ petition itself was presented on December 28, 1978. No
\ satisfactory reason for the delay was set out in the petition. B

{ It is well settled that the power of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution t<i issue an appropriate writ is discretionary
and if the High Court finds that there is not satisfactory explanation
for the inordinate delay, it may reject the petition if it finds that the
issue of Writ will lead to public inconvenience and interference with c
rights of others. This rule applies also to a case in which the validity
of an election to a local authority is challenged. The question whether
in a given case the delay involved is such that it disentitles a person
to relief under Article 226 is a matter within the discretion of the High
Court which as in all matters of discretion has to exercise it judiciously
and reasonably having regard to the surrounding circumstances. D
We are not, therefore, impressed by the argument that the peti·
tioners were entitled to the issue of the writ prayed for as of right and
the delay in filing the petition should have been ignored.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court as E
there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in preferring it.
We, therefore, find it unnecessary to deal with the other points urged
before us.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed. We
make no order as to costs.
• F

N.V.K. Appeals dismissed .

•