KOMARASWAMI PILLAI Vs. S. VENKATARAMA RAO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this writ appeal is whether an Election Commissioner appointed to enquire into an election petition filed to set aside an election to a District Municipality has got the power to amend the petition by adding another ground on which the election is sought to be set aside, after the time for presenting the election petition has elapsed. Rajagopalan, J., held that the Election Commissioner has no jurisdiction to order an amendment in such circumstances.

(2.) THE facts may be set out very briefly. An election for a seat in the Municipality from Municipal Ward No. 11, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore, was held on 16th September, 1952. There were three competing candidates of whom the 1st respondent was declared elected on 29th September, 1952, having secured the largest number of votes. The appellant before us filed an election petition before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, who was the duly constituted Election Commissioner, challenging the validity of the 1st respondent's election on two grounds, namely (1) that the 1st respondent was not validly nominated and (2) that there was an unauthorised inclusion of a number of voters in the electoral roll. On 27th October, 1952, before the enquiry began but after the time for presenting an election petition had elapsed, the appellant filed an application to amend his petition by adding another ground on which he wanted to challenge the validity of the election, namely, that the 1st respondent was disqualified under Section 49(2)(c) of the District Municipalities Act, as he had an interest in a subsisting contract with the Municipality. That petition was allowed on 1st November, 1953. The Election Commissioner found against the appellant on the two grounds originally put forward in the election petition. But he held that the additional ground included by the amendment had been made out, and on that ground set aside the election of the 1st respondent. It was to quash this order of the Election Commissioner that W.P. No. 133 of 1953 was filed by the 1st respondent. Rajagopalan, J., allowed the petition, holding that the Election Commissioner had no jurisdiction to order the amendment. This appeal is against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J.

(3.) BEFORE we deal with decisions of this Court and other High Courts which have a bearing on the question which falls to be decided in this case, we shall refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court, in which the provisions of the Representation of People Act more or less similar to the provisions of the Municipal Election Rules bad to be construed. Section 83 of that Act runs thus: