Mandatory Gazette publication governs municipal election timing; non-compliance vitiates the election despite an alternate remedy.

The U.P. Municipalities election timetable had to comply with paragraph 6(1) of the 1964 Election Order, which required the District Magistrate's notification fixing nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal and polling dates to be published in the Official Gazette. The note states that publication date, not the date of drafting or dispatch, governed compliance, and the four-day gap was mandatory. On that basis, the programme for filling the casual vacancy in the office of President was invalid and the election held under it was vitiated. It also states that the availability of an election petition did not bar Article 226 relief where the writ was filed promptly and the legality of the election programme itself was under challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the election programme for filling the casual vacancy in the office of President was validly fixed in accordance with paragraph 6(1) of the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of President and Election Petitions) Order, 1964. (ii) Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be declined on the ground that an election petition was available.

Issue (i): Whether the election programme for filling the casual vacancy in the office of President was validly fixed in accordance with paragraph 6(1) of the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of President and Election Petitions) Order, 1964.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1960 requires the President to be elected in the manner prescribed by law, and the State Government's Election Order makes the District Magistrate's notification in the Official Gazette the sole mode of appointing the dates for nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal, and polling. The expression "notification" in the Act means a notification published in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the date of notification is the date of publication, not the date on which the draft was prepared or dispatched. Since the Gazette containing the notification was published only after 24 September 1974, the last date fixed for nominations, 26 September 1974, was not a date at least four days after publication. The requirement in paragraph 6(1)(a) was therefore not complied with, and that provision was held to be mandatory, not merely directory.

Conclusion: The election programme was invalidly fixed and the election held pursuant to it was vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be declined on the ground that an election petition was available.

Analysis: The availability of an election petition did not compel refusal of relief in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner had approached the Court promptly before the election was held and had challenged the legality of the election programme itself. The Court had earlier permitted the election to proceed subject to the result of the writ petition, which meant that the election would stand or fall with the final decision in the writ proceedings. In those circumstances, the existence of another remedy did not justify withholding constitutional relief.

Conclusion: The Court declined to refuse relief on the ground of alternate remedy and exercised writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The election process was held to be contrary to the mandatory statutory requirements, and the resulting election was set aside in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes publication in the Official Gazette as the exclusive mode for appointing election dates, the publication date governs compliance, and non-compliance with a mandatory electoral timetable vitiates the election notwithstanding any later public notice or availability of an election petition.

---