aggrieved by this order respondent number 1 filed a special civil application number 173 of 1964 under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution before the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench on the 3rd april 1964.
according to respondent number 1 the employment of the appellants son by the municipal committee showed that the appellant had an interest in the municipal companymittee and so he was disqualified from standing for election under section 15 1 of the central provinces and berar municipalities act 1922 number 11 of 1922 hereinafter called the act .
by his petition respondent number 1 urged that the decision of the supervising officer over ruling his objection to the candidature of the appellant was patently invalid in law and so he asked for a writ order or direction of an appropriate nature setting aside the impugned order of the supervising officer and prohibiting him from holding the election from ward number 17 as scheduled on the 19th april 1964.
it is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this companyrt by special leave and the short question which has been argued before us by mr.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 17 1964 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench at nagpur in special civil application number 173 of 1964.
the date fixed for filing the numberination papers was 16th march 1964 and the date for scrutiny was 18th march 1964.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 936 of 1965.
on the 18th march 1964 the supervising officer over ruled the objection raised by respondent number 1.
l. gauba d. d. verma s. s. khanduja and ganpat rai for the respondents.
c. setalvad and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
when the stage of scrutiny arrived respondent number 1 objected to the validity of the candidature of the appellant.
this writ petition was resisted by the appellant on the same grounds which he had urged before the supervising officer.
in view of the fact that after the rejection of the numberination paper of the appellant respondent number 1 was the only candidate who had offered for election on behalf of ward number 17 the high companyrt declared that respondent number 1 had been duly elected from the said ward.
he alleged that his son was number staying with him and had numberconnection with him whatsoever.
both the appellant and respondent number 1 had filed their numberination papers as required by the relevant rules.
he held that on the facts brought to his numberice s. 15 1 of the act was inapplicable.
he alleged that the appellants son khalildad khan was a moharir on octroi naka employed by the municipal companymittee as such he was a servant of the companymittee.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c. j. the appellant gulam yasin khan and respondent number 1 sahebrao yeshwantrao walaskar were candi dates for election as members to the municipal companymittee malkapur district buldana from ward number 17.
the appellant disputed the validity of this objection.
