V PANCHAPAKESA AIYAR Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TANJORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the unsuccessful candidate at a bye-election for the Governor's Legislative Council held on the 10 March, 1930. He secured 1618 votes against 11,299 valid votes cast for his opponent. The total number of votes was 13,373, but 456 votes were found to be invalid. Under Rule 12 (1) of the Madras Electoral Rules, framed under Secs.72-A and 129-A of the Government of India Act (the Act of 1915) a candidate is required to deposit with the Returning Officer the sum of Rs. 250 in cash or in Government promissory notes. Under Sub- rule (3), if a candidate is not elected and the number of votes polled by him does not exceed in the case of a constituency returning one or two members one-eighth of the total number of votes polled, or in the case of a constituency returning more than two members, one-eighth of the number of votes polled divided by the number of members to be elected the deposit shall be forfeited to the Government. Sub-rule (4) says that for the purpose of Sub-rule (3) the number of votes polled shall be deemed to be the number of ballot papers other than spoilt ballot papers counted. Excluding the invalid votes the appellant secured one- eighth of the votes polled, but including them he had less than one-eighth of the total. The appellant applied to the Returning Officer for the return of his deposit, claiming that the invalid votes should be treated as spoilt ballot papers and therefore should not be counted. The Returning Officer passed an order declaring that the deposit was forfeited to Government. The appellant petitioned the Local Government against the Returning Officer's Order, but his petition was rejected. Rule 48 of the Electoral Rules states that if any question arises as to the interpretation of the rules, otherwise than in connection with an election inquiry held thereunder, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. The decision of the Government must for the purpose of this case be taken to be the decision of the Governor under this rule.

(2.) As the appellant's petition was rejected, he filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the District Munsif of Tanjore against the Secretary of State for India in Council for the recovery of the Rs. 250 deposited by him. The District Munsif decreed the suit, but his decision was reversed on appeal by the Subordinate judge of Tanjore, who held that the suit did not lie. The appellant then appealed to this Court and his appeal was heard by Wadsworth, J., who agreed with the Subordinate Judge, but gave a certificate under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which has permitted the present appeal to be filed.

(3.) Wadsworth, J., was of the opinion that the suit did not lie because the electoral rules provide a special agency for the interpretation of the rules in doubtful or disputed cases and therefore the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. He also held against the appellant on the interpretation of the rules. If the appellant's deposit had been wrongly withheld from him, he certainly would have a right of suit and that has been conceded by the learned Government Pleader, who, however, says that in this case the deposit has not been wrongly withheld from the appellant. The only tribunal competent to decide whether the appellant is entitled to the return of the deposit is the Governor and his decision is against the appellant. We considered that the argument of the learned Government Pleader must prevail. It is based on two decisions of this Court which are binding upon us.