C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Since both these writ petitions and Civil Applications involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of, by this common judgment.
2. After the interim order was passed by this Court on 26th April, 1985 we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, including Shri Naik who is appearing for Shri T.N. Kisnani. In the order of this Court dated 26th April, 1985 a reference is made to the earlier order which reads as under :
'It is agreed between the parties that the supplementary lists dated 3rd April, 1985, though signed by the Chief Officer, which are not authenticated by him, shall not be acted upon by the Election Officers and shall be ignored. Order accordingly.'
The result of this order was that whatever deletions and additions had taken place in the supplementary lists of all wards in Ulhasnagar Municipal Council dated 3rd April, 1985 were to be of no consequence and elections could only proceed by ignoring those additions and deletions. In the order dated 26th April, 1985 the Division Bench also observed that 'we are of the opinion that there are prima facie large scale irregularities or illegalities in the voters lists prepared for the Ulhasnagar Municipal Council'. To say the least this position is not now disputed before us. Therefore, it is practically an admitted position that the voters lists were not prepared in accordance with the provisions of law. From this it must follow that new voters lists will have to be prepared after following the procedure prescribed by law and the elections will have to be held on that basis. In view of this admitted position it is not necessary to deal with the various contentions raised in these petitions.
3. However, Shri Naik, learned Counsel appearing for Shri Kisnani contended before us that so far as Ward No. 19 is concerned, he is the only candidate left in the field and, therefore, was entitled to be declared elected unopposed. No supplementary lists were prepared so far as that ward is concerned. Therefore, the election of Shri Kisnani should not be upset in these writ petitions. We find it difficult to accept this contention since in our opinion once it is admitted that there are large-scale irregularities and/or illegalities in the preparation of the voters lists for the Ulhasnagar Municipal Council as a whole, then the preparation of the new lists in accordance with rules and law is bound to affect even the election of Shri Kisnani, because if new voters lists are prepared in accordance with law, voters lists for ward No. 19 will have also to be prepared. In these circumstances it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Shri Naik and it will have to be held that the election process gone through in Ward No. 19 including the declaration of an elected candidate will be of no consequence and deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the election process gone through in Ward No. 19 including the so-called declaration of the election of Shri Kisnani is also set aside and the respondents are directed to prepare accordance with law and then hold fresh election. Shri Hegde, the learned Additional Government Pleader makes a statement that the process of preparation of new voters lists and holding of the election will be completed on or before 31st March, 1986. The respondents are directed to complete the whole of the election process by that date that is on or before 31st March, 1986.
Hence Rule is made absolute in both these writ petitions with no order as to costs.
4. Civil Application Nos. 1715 and 2034 of 1985 in Writ Petition No. 1697 of 1985 for joining the applicants as parties respondents are allowed. In Civil Application No. 2865 of 1985 in Writ Petition No. 1697 of 1985 S/Shri Umakant Gangadin Pande, Suryadev Shibsagar Upadhya and Dwarkadas Namandas Santani, being applicants, have claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- qua each of the applicants from the respondents. As a matter of fact on the basis of the concession made by the authorities concerned, we have decided the main writ petitions. But for making certain vague allegations, it is nowhere alleged much less established that there was any wilful breach of official duty by any of the authorities. In view of this position we do not find any substance in this Civil Application. The said Civil Application stands rejected, with no order as to costs.