RATHNAM PILLAI Vs. SELLAPPA REDDIAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami J, issuing a Writ of Certiorari and quashing the order of the Election Commissioner (District Munsif, Turaiyur), who dismissed an election petition filed by the first respondent as barred by limitation. The sole question for determination in the appeal is whether it would be competent for a person presenting an election petition under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, to do so in the office of the Election Commissioner, or, whether it is obligatory on him to present it to the Election Commissioner personally. The appellant and the first respondent were the competing candidates for election to the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council at Perambalur in Tiruchirapalti Dt. The election was held on 24th April 1961 at the premises of the Council. The rival candidates secured an equal number of votes. Lots were then cast. The result turned out to be in favour of the appellant who was declared elected. Aggrieved by the result so declared the first respondent took steps to challenge the same by a petition. Under the relevant rules for the decision of disputes in regard to an election, an election petition will have to be presented within 15 days from the date of the declaration of the results of the election to an Election Court constituted thereunder. The election took place during the time when the Court of the District Munsif, Turaiyur, who was the Election Commissioner for the purpose of the petition; was closed for the summer recess. The Court was reopened on 22nd May 1961. On that date, an election petition challenging the election of the appellant as the Chairman of the Union Council was presented. There is a controversy between the parties as to whether it was presented to the District Munsif, the Election Commissioner, personally or to his head clerk, who in turn delivered the petition to the District Munsif only on the following day. The Advocate who presented the petition on that day has been examined in support of the case that such presentation was made to the District Munsif personally. But this evidence, for no valid reason, was not accepted by the Election Commissioner, who held that the petition must have been presented only to the Head Clerk of the District Munsif Court on the 22nd and that it must have been given by that subordinate to the District Munsif only on the following date. For the purpose of this petition, we consider that it would be sufficient to proceed on the basis of the finding to the Election Commissioner, however, unsatisfactory it might be. The appellant contested the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation, as, according to him, it should be deemed to have been validly presented only on 23rd May, 1961, that is, a day after the last day for the presentation of the petition, i.e., the reopening date of that Court. The Election Commissioner accepted this contention of the appellant and dismissed the petition. Veeraswami J. in proceedings initiated under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the first respondent, held that the presentation to the Head Clerk of the District Munsif Court on 22nd May 1961 was a valid presentation, and that, therefore, the petition was in time. The learned Judge issued a Writ quashing the order of the Election Commissioner and directing him to proceed with the further inquiry into the merits of the petition; hence this appeal.

(2.) The substantial contention of Mr. V. P. Raman, who appears for the appellant, is that as the District Munsif (Election Commissioner) under the relevant rules, is acting as a persona designata, it will not be open to the first respondent to present the election petition to any person other than the Election Commissioner himself. The soundness of this argument depends on the construction to be placed upon the relevant rules framed under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. Rule (1) states that an election can be challenged only by a petition presented in accordance with the rules to an election Court, Sub -rule 2 to that rule defines an election Court thus:

(3.) It will be clear from the rules extracted above that the petition is to be presented to the Election Court. The Explanation to Rule 2 would show to suggest that the election Court will be the District Munsif. But it is implicit on a reading of the Explanation to Rule 2 that the presentation is to be made at the office of the election Court, as otherwise there would be no need for enabling the election petitioner to file the petition to wait for the reopening of the office of the Court.