LAKSHMINARASIMHA SOMAYAJIYAR Vs. RAMALINGAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts have been set out in the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother and I need not repeat them.

(2.) The questions argued were, (1) Whether the powers given by Sections 16 and 144 of the Local Boards Act (Madras Act V of 1884) to the Governor-in-Council to frame forms and to prescribe rules and conditions, as regards the system of representation and of election, include or Imply the power to make rules for the conduct of inquiries into the objections made to the validity of elections and to the creation of special tribunals to make such inquiries so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts and to make the opinion of the special tribunals final, as to the validity of elections; (2) assuming that the Governor-in-Council has such powers, do the rules as framed on the 6th June 1917 (Set Exhibit III) exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain objections to the validity of the election even when those objections are based on the grounds (a) that there was no valid electoral register in existence on the date of election, and (6) that consequently the President of the District Board should have filled the vacancy, by appointment under Rule 13; and (c) the defendant, who claims to have been elected, has, therefore, not been validly elected; (3) whether the plaintiff has an interest in the matter of the legal validity of the constitution of the Taluq Board sufficient in the eye of the law to give him the right to sue for a declaration or the validity of the disputed election; and (4) even if all the above three points are decided in the plaintiff s favour, whether this is a case where the Court has a discretion to grant or refuse the declaratory and injunction reliefs prayed for, and, if the Court has such discretion, whether sash reliefs ought to be refused in this case.

(3.) I shall deal with point No. 3 first. That point is "whether the plaintiff has an interest in the matter of the proper constitution of the Taluq Board sufficient, in the eye of the law, to give him the right to sue for a declaration of the invalidity of the disputed election." The plaintiff is a resident of Shermadevi and the vacant seat in question was a seat on the Taluq Board of Shermadevi to which Taluq Board have been given important powers under the Local Boards Act to deal with certain affairs of the inhabitants of the Taluq. If the disputed election is held invalid, he has a chance of being appointed to the vacancy, or of being elected when a valid election is held. The suit may not be one falling under Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act as the plaintiff does not sue for a declaration of his own legal character or his right to any property. But he is a citizen owning properties situated within the area of the Taluq Board and having a fair chance of being appointed or pleated as a member of the Board and he has, therefore, such a substantial interest in the proper constitution of the Board, as entitles him to bring a suit for a declaration as to the invalidity of the election, it having been held in the well-known case of Robert Fischer v. Secretary of State for India 22 M. 270 (P.C.) : 3 C.W.N. 161 : 26 I.A. 16 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 459 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) (SIC) that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive for the declaratory suits entertained by Civil Courts.