R. CHENNAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition relates to the election to the office of the President of the Anekal Town Municipality held en 19 -5 -1954. While under Section 17, Town Municipalities Act the term of office of Municipal Councillors elected at a general election is 4 years, under Section 23(11) the President's ten of office is 2 years. The general elections were held March 1952. The period of office of the first, president having expired in April 1954 the election of a president for the remaining period was scheduled to be held on 19 -5 -1954. The present Petitioner and Respondent 2 were the competing candidates. At the election each of them got 7 votes. Lots were drawn and they went in favour of the Petitioner who was accordingly declared to have -been elected president. Thereupon Respondents 2 to 8 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, under Rule 10 of the rules framed under Section 23 (2) and (3) and Section 208, Mysore Town Municipalities Act and notified as No. L.8S06 -ML. 150 -51 -3, dated 12 -11 -1951. The main allegation in the appeal seem? to have been that one of the councilor, Respondent 3 Yelenarasappa, was removed by force on the night of 18 -5 -1954 and kept away from the place where the election took place with a view to prevent him from exercising his vote, that this was done at the instance of the present Petitioner as it was known that the said councilor would exercise his vote in favour of the rival candidate and that his vote would have resulted in the success of the rival candidate Respondent 2 since the two, candidates had (without reckoning the said vote) obtained an equal number of votes. The Deputy Commissioner remitted the matter for inquiry to the Sub -Division Officer and after receipt of the records' of the inquiry reported the proceedings together with his opinion to Government through the Commissioner for Local Self -Government. The election petition was heard on 4 -1 -1955 by the Minister for Local Self -Government, both the parties being represented by Counsel. On 22 -7 -55, the Minister visited Anekal, met most of the councillors and on 26 -8 -55 orders were passed holding that Respondent 3 had been wrongfully prevented from exercising his vote at the presidential election and that there had been no free and fair election and declaring the election of the Petitioner as President invalid and. directing a fresh election to be hold.

(2.) THIS order is challenged as being without jurisdiction on the grounds (1) that under Rule II Government had no power to examine any witnesses or make further inquiry and had to act cattily on the basis of the report Kent by the Deputy Commissioner and (2) that the inquiry conducted by the Minister was against the principles of natural justice as ho called one person at a time, hoard him in camera and In the absence of the pot Manor and as the material so gathered was nut made available to the Petitioner.

(3.) IT is also argued that Rule 11 docs not contemplate a further enquiry by Govt. and that any such inquiry would be ultra vires of the powers of Government; under that rule. It is rue that there is no specific provision for Government directly holding an inquiry under Rule 11, but there is nothing in that rule which prevents Government from holding an inquiry if, in its view, it is necessary to do so. It may be remembered that the final decision and, indeed, the only decision is to be given by Government and, if for any reason Government is mot Satisfied with the available material, there is no reason in die absence of compelling language in the relevant provisions why Government should not take measures to satisfy itself. It may be suggested that the only way in which such supplementary material should be brought on record is by remitting the matter for further inquiry to the Deputy Commissioner; but if the Reasoning adopted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is accepted, even that course would not be permissible since Rule 11 does not specifically provide for it. It therefore appears to us that this contention has no force.