LAKSHMINARASIMHA SOMAYAGIYAR Vs. RAMALINGAM PILLAY

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 appointment by election and 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 (See Ex. III) exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain objection 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 the 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 Taluk 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 ; 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 such reliefs ought to be refused in this case.

(3.) I shall deal with point No. 3 first. That point is "whether plaintiff has an interest in the matter of the proper constitution of the Taluk 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 Sherraadevi and the vacant seat in question was a seat on the Taluk Board of Shermadevi to which Taluk Board have been given important powers under the Local Boards Act, to deal with certain affairs of the inhabitants of the Taluk. 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 Relief 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 Taluk Board, and having a fair chance of being appointed, or elected, 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 Fisher v. Secretary of State for India-in-Council (1898) I.L.R. 22 Mad. 270 that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive, of the declaratory suits entertainable by Civil Courts.