AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Q. H. Siddiqui learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 4.
The petitioner is challenging the election of Up Nagar Pramukh. Nagar Nigam. Allahabad. Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, provides for an election petition by an unsuccessful candidate or by a candidate whose nomination paper has been rejected or by a member of the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he does not belong to any one of the categories mentioned in Section 61, he cannot file an election petition. That may be correct, but, in our opinion, an election can only be challenged by the persons mentioned in, and in the manner provided in Section 61. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it will logically follow that even the election of the President of India or a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly may be challenged by filing a writ petition merely because the petitioner could not challenge the election by way of election petition.
In our opinion, Section 61 impliedly excludes such persons who are not mentioned in Section 61 from challenging an election, even by means of a writ petition.
Since the petitioner is not one of the persons mentioned in Section 61, in our opinion, he cannot challenge the election. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.