KOTA SUBRAMANIAM CHETTY Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is suing in the District Munsif s Court of Tirupathur for a declaration that his name should be inserted in the electoral roll of Gudiyatham Municipality, and for an injunction restraining the Chairman from holding an election for Councillors until the petitioner by means of this suit has. established his right to stand as a candidate. The District Munsif granted a temporary injunction ; the District Judge reversed that order and petitioner seeks. to revise the order of the District Judge and to obtain an interim order of injunction.

(2.) It has not been suggested that the learned District Judge in his carefully reasoned order either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, except in so far as it must be held, following Achayya v. Sri Seetharamachandra Rao [1916] 39 Mad. 195 that, if an appellate Court erroneously decides the question whether or not the original Court had jurisdiction, it either exercises a jurisdiction not vested in itself or acts illegally. The District Judge has held that the District Munsif had jurisdiction and the sole point for determination is whether that finding is correct, If it is correct, there is no cause for revision.

(3.) The petitioner s name was not entered in the electoral roll for 1925-26 on the ground that he had not paid the taxes due by him under the Act for the preceding year. The revising authority found that the petitioner owned a cart for which he had paid no tax in 1924-25 and, therefore, his name had been rightly excluded. This decision is final, and cannot be questioned in a civil Court unless it has been passed without any enquiry at all or based upon entirely irrelevant conclusions, Nataraja Mudaliar v. Municipal Council of Mayavaram [1911] 36 Mad. 120. The ruling in Ganesh Mahadev v. The Secretary of State [1919] 43 Bom. 221, is largely founded upon Board of Education v. Rice [1911] A.C. 179, and the quotations from that case on pages 282 and 283 of the Bombay ruling are of cardinal importance as laying down how these special tribunals are expected to perform their functions. So long as they act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, there will be no civil cause of action against their decisions.