Mandatory election notice and valid authority are required before nominations can be dispensed with under municipal rules.

Municipal election powers under the rules must be exercised by the designated authority with proper authentication, and a special order dispensing with nomination and objection procedures is ineffective unless lawfully made. The election notice rule was construed to require at least three days' advance notice of the election date, because the object is to inform voters and candidates and preserve the right to nominate. An ineffective notification cannot lawfully trigger the election process or bypass nomination safeguards. The election notified for the stated date was therefore treated as illegal, and restraint on holding an election without a valid notification and the required notice was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification fixing the election date and dispensing with the procedure for nominations and objections was validly issued by the proper authority and in the manner required by law; (ii) Whether the absence of three days' notice under the election rules invalidated the proposed election and justified a mandatory restraint under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (i): Whether the notification fixing the election date and dispensing with the procedure for nominations and objections was validly issued by the proper authority and in the manner required by law.

Analysis: The power conferred by the municipal election rules had to be exercised by the authority designated by the statute as read in the light of the Government of India Act, 1919. The reference to the Governor-in-Council was construed as a reference to the executive Government acting through the proper constitutional authority, but the notification itself did not purport to be made by that authority and there was no proof of the authentication required to protect it from challenge. Since the special order dispensing with Rules 2, 3 and 4 was not shown to have been made and authenticated by the competent authority, the notification could not validly exclude those procedural safeguards.

Conclusion: The notification was invalid and could not lawfully dispense with Rules 2, 3 and 4.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of three days' notice under the election rules invalidated the proposed election and justified a mandatory restraint under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: Rule 6 was construed as requiring notice of the date of election at least three days in advance, because the object of the rule was to inform voters and candidates of the election that was to be held. A construction permitting publication of candidates' names without notifying the election date, or allowing an election on the following day, would defeat the rule's purpose. The court further held that the right to nominate a candidate formed part of the electoral franchise, and that the denial of that right was not a merely technical irregularity where the notification itself was ineffective and the proper election process had not been lawfully set in motion.

Conclusion: The election notified for 30 September was illegal, and a mandatory order restraining the respondent from holding an election without lawful notification and notice was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the respondent was restrained from holding an election on any fresh date unless the date was fixed by a proper notification under Rule 5 and three days' notice was given under Rule 6.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or rule requires a special order and prescribed notice for the exercise of electoral powers, strict compliance with the designated authority, authentication requirements, and notice provisions is mandatory, and an invalid notification cannot be used to defeat the franchise or bypass nomination safeguards.

---