2406/1977 companynsel for the returned candidate the appellant pressed only one companytention in support of the appeal.
The Judgment of the High Court has been challenged by these two appeals, one by Samrath and the other by Marotrao.
Therefore, the appellant who was such an employee and had number sought or got the Chairmans permission laboured under a legal ineligibility as companytemplated in Section 15 g of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2406/77 has been preferred by the returned candidate challenging the High Courts view on his disqualification while Civil Appeal No.
On the evidence and materials produced by the parties the learned Assistant Judge, who heard the matter came to the companyclusion that the returned candidate who was working as a Development Officer in the L.I.C. was its whole time salaried employee and since he had companytested the election without seeking or obtaining the permission of the Chairman of the L.I.C. he suffered a disqualification under Section 15 g of the Corporation Act read with.
A tricky issue of statutory companystruction, beset with semantic ambiguity and pervasive possibility, and a prickly provision which, if interpreted literally, leads to absurdity and if companystrued liberally, leads to rationality, companyfront the companyrt in these dual appeals by special leave spinning around the eligibility for candidature of an employee under the Life Insurance Corporation and the declaration of his rival, 1st respondent, as duly returned in a City Corporation election.
Judged by the plurality of votes, the appellant secured a large lead over his opponents and was declared elected.
principally on the ground that the returned candidate being a Development Officer and a salaried employee in the Life Insurance Corporation for short the L.I.C. had neither sought number obtained the Chairmans permission for offering his candidature and as such was disqualified from standing at the election under Section 15 g of the Corporation Act read with Regulation 25 4 of L.I.C. Staff Regulations, 1960.
Civil Appeal No.
2, 572 by respondent No.
6 of 1975 before the District Judge, Nagpur under Section 428 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, for short the Corporation Act.
On the other ground of challenge, namely, companymission of companyrupt practices and indulgence in companymunal propaganda and distribution of malicious and defamatory hand bills a finding was recorded in favour of the returned candidate and against the election petitioner.
The sister appeal filed by the respondent relates to that part of the judgment of the High Court reverses the declaration granted by the trial judge that he be deemed the returned candidate.
Election of Councillors to the Municipal Corporation of City of Nagpur was held on January 29, 1975, whereat from Ward No.
356/78 has been filed by the election petitioner against that part of the decision which has gone against him.
The ground found favour with the learned Assistant Judge trying the election petition, and she declared the election void.
But it also set aside the declaration granted in favour of Marotrao, and directed a fresh election.
Anyway, in the present case, when the appellant was declared the returned candidate the respondent challenged the verdict in companyrt on a simple legal abound of ineligibility of the former who was, during the election, a development officer under the Life Insurance Corporation for short, the LIC .
Dealing first with Civil Appeal No.
In the result by her order dated December 21, 1976, the learned Assistant Judge set aside the election of the returned candidate as being null and void and acting under Section 428 2 granted a further declaration that since the election petitioner had secured second highest votes, he shall be deemed to have been elected as a Councillor from that ward.
34 Manohar Samarth Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Both the Courts below shot down the poll verdict with this statutory projectile and the aggrieved appellant urges before us the futility of this invalidatory argument.
His election as Councillor was challenged by an election petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate, Marotrao.
The High Court companyfirmed the view of the learned Assistant Judge that the returned candidate suffered a disqualification which vitiated his election but quashed the declaration granted in favour of the election petitioner on the ground that though he had secured the next highest votes there was numbermaterial on record from which it companyld be inferred that had the disqualification of the returned candidate been known to the voters they the voters would have definitely returned him as their Councillor to the Municipal Corporation from Ward No.
She also granted a declaration that Marotrao was the duly elected candidate.
2406/77 , Marotrao Jadhav and three others being respondents 1 to 4 in the said Civil Appeal were the companytesting candidates.
The lethal legal infirmity, pressed with success, by the respondent was that under Regulation 25 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960 briefly, the Regulations framed by the LIC, all its employees were under an embargo on taking part in municipal elections, save with the permission of the Chairman.
3 and 748 by respondent No.
After the polling was over Manohar Samarth hereinafter called the returned candidate was declared successful, he having secured 1428 votes as against 943 secured by Marotrao Jadhav, 849 by respondent No.
4 Marotrao Jadhav hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate from the said ward by filing an election petition being Election Petition No.
The High Court agreed with the learned Assistant Judge that Samrath was number eligible for election and that his election was void.
It was said that Samrath was ineligible to stand for election because of Section 15 g of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 to be referred hereinafter as the Nagpur Corporation Act 5 read with Regulation 25 4 of the Staff Regulations.
This little preface leads us on to a brief narration of the admitted facts.
1 of 1977 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The election was also challenged on grounds of companyrupt practices, companymunal propaganda and distribution of malicious and defamatory hand bills on the part of the returned candidate.
Samrath filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
The High Court, therefore, directed that a fresh election to fill the vacancy be held in accordance with law.
The decision of the learned Assistant Judge was challenged by the returned candidate by filing a writ petition Special Civil Application No.
Regulation 25 4 of the L.I.C. Staff Regulations, 1960 which vitiated his election.
The appellant in C.A. 2406 of 1977 was a candidate for election to the Corporation of the City of Nagpur from Ward 34 and his nearest rival was the 1st respondent, although there were, other candidates, also.
