JADUMANI BEHERA Vs. JADUMANI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the District Judge of Cuttack as a Tribunal under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, dismissing the petitioner's election petition for a declaration that he was validly elected as a Municipal Councillor in ward No. 1 of Cuttack Municipality.

(2.) The Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 was brought into force in Cuttack Municipality on 16.4.51 and elections were held under that Act and the Municipal Election Rules 1950 framed thereunder. The Municipality was divided into several wards as required by Section 12 (2) and the present dispute is in respect of the election held in ward No. 1. That ward consists of two seats, one of which was set apart as a reserved seat for members of scheduled tribes and castes (see Section 11 read with Section 12 (2) (b) ). The polling took place on the 20th of April, 1951. The petitioner, the opposite party Jadumani Sahoo, and one Naba Sethi were some of the candidates who offered themselves for election from ward No. 1. The petitioner and Naba Sethi are admittedly members of the scheduled castes and opposite party Jadumani Sahu is not a member of the scheduled castes or tribes. The District Magistrate of Cuttack as the Election Officer counted the votes on 23-4-51 and found that the aforesaid three candidates secured the following number of votes : -- He then declared Naba Sethi to be validly elected to the reserved seat in ward No. 1. Thereafter, he felt some doubt as regards the declaration of results for the non-reserved seat and consulted the Government in his letter No, 578/Election, dated 24-4-51. The Government in their letter No. 3167 L. S. G., dated 26-4-51 gave him their own interpretation of Rule 53 which was binding on him under Rule 60. Then he declared that opposite party Jadumani Sahu was duly elected as a Councillor for the non-reserved seat of ward No. 1. He rejected the claim of the petitioner chiefly because though he got more valid votes than Jadumani Sahu, he, by his own declaration in the nomination paper and subsequent correspondence had declared his intention of standing for the reserved seat only in ward No. 1. The District Judge, as a Tribunal, also took the same view and further held that in any case the interpretation given by the Government under Rule 60 on a reference made by the Election Officer was binding on the District Judge also.

(3.) The Orissa Municipal Act contains adequate provisions for the hearing of election petitions against elections held under the Act. Section 21 says that the District judge shall be the Tribunal and that he shall exercise his jurisdiction as persona designata and not as a Judge of a Civil Court. But Sections 22 and 23 require that he should follow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and that he should have the same powers and privileges as a Judge of a Civil Court while hearing election petitions, subject of course to the provisions of the Act and the rules that may be framed thereunder. He is not required to record the evidence in full and it is provided that there shall be no appeal or revision against the decisions of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal is binding on all parties and it is further provided in Section 37 that no election of the Councillor shall be Naba Sethi ... 664 Jadumani Behera ... 592 Jadumani Sahu ... 505 called in question in any court except under the procedure provided by this Act and the rules, if any, made thereunder, and no orders passed by the Tribunal shall be called in question in any Court. The whole scheme of the Act is thus to make the District Judge, in his capacity as the Tribunal, the final authority for decision of election disputes under the Act and to expressly bar the jurisdiction of any Court to interfere with his order.