Vacancy versus absence in Regional Council elections: remaining-term election mechanism prevails, and writ challenge was not maintainable.

Vacancy in the office of Chairman of a Regional Council was treated as distinct from mere temporary absence: Regulation 117(2), read with Regulation 119(2), required election of another member for the remaining term, and that elected member could validly preside over the meeting. The meeting was therefore not invalid merely because the Vice-Chairman did not chair it. The writ challenge to the election was also held not maintainable because Regulation 114(4) provided a specific internal election-dispute remedy, the matter raised disputed questions of fact, and the challenger had not participated in the election. The election of the office bearers was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the vacancy of the office of Chairman of the Regional Council, the meeting for electing office bearers was required to be chaired by the Vice-Chairman under Regulation 92(2) or could be chaired by a member elected for the remaining period under Regulations 117(2) and 119(2); (ii) whether the writ petition challenging the election was maintainable in view of Regulation 114(4), disputed questions of fact, and the fact that the challenger had not participated in the election.

Issue (i): Whether, on the vacancy of the office of Chairman of the Regional Council, the meeting for electing office bearers was required to be chaired by the Vice-Chairman under Regulation 92(2) or could be chaired by a member elected for the remaining period under Regulations 117(2) and 119(2).

Analysis: Regulation 92(2) operates where the Chairman is merely absent. Regulation 117(2) applies where the office has fallen vacant on account of vacation of office. In such a situation, Regulation 119(2) requires the Regional Council to elect another member to hold the office for the remaining period. The vacancy caused by disqualification of the Chairman was therefore to be filled by election, and the person elected for the remaining period could validly preside over the meeting for that purpose.

Conclusion: The meeting was validly chaired by the person elected for the remaining period, and the election could not be invalidated on the ground that the Vice-Chairman did not preside over it.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the election was maintainable in view of Regulation 114(4), disputed questions of fact, and the fact that the challenger had not participated in the election.

Analysis: Regulation 114(4) provides a specific mechanism for dispute regarding election to a Regional Council, to be raised by the candidate concerned within the prescribed time and decided finally by the President. The challenge also involved disputed questions about the conduct of the meeting and election, which were not suitable for writ adjudication. In addition, the challenger had not contested the election.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and ought not to have been entertained.

Final Conclusion: The election of the office bearers was restored and the challenge to the election failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A vacancy in office is legally distinct from mere absence, and where the office has fallen vacant, the special election mechanism for the remaining period prevails over the rule applicable to temporary absence; election disputes governed by a specific internal remedy should not be pursued through writ jurisdiction when they involve disputed facts and the challenger lacks the requisite electoral participation.

---