RASH BEHARY GHOSHAL Vs. JCSTALKART

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, respondent in this appeal, Mr. J.C. Stalkart, was a candidate for election as a Municipal Commissioner in Ward No. 1 of the Howrah Municipality in 1909 and in compliance with Rule 14 of the Election Rales framed by the Local Government under Sections 15 and 69 of the Bengal Municipal Act, III of 1884, as amended by Act IV of 1894 and Act II of 1896, submitted 5 nomination forms to the Chairman in Form B. These were numbered 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and of these all but No. 5 were rejected as failing to comply with the provisions of the law. The nomination form No. 5 was in due course placed before the returning officer. In column 2 of the form the name of the candidate was entered as J.C. Stalkart and in column 4, in which the particulars of qualification as a voter have to be stated, the entry was "representing W.H. Horton & Co., Rate payers." This information was required as Rule 13 of the Rules provides that "any person qualified to vote under these rules and not disqualified under Section 57 of the Act shall be qualified to be elected as a Commissioner." The returning officer held that Mr. J.C. Stalkart was not qualified for election as a Commissioner because the ground on which he claimed to be entitled to a vote was that under Rule 8 of the Rules he had been authorised to vote on behalf of a corporation, i.e., the firm of Messrs. W.H. Horton & Co. The returning officer held that a person authorised to vote under Rule 8 was not a qualified voter as required by Rule 2 and Rule 13.

(2.) Rule 2 provides, every male person shall be eligible to vote who has attained the age of 21 years, has been resident within the limits of the Municipality for not less than 12 months immediately preceding the election, has been duly registered as provided in Rules 4 to 12 inclusive and has paid rates and taxes up to a certain amount during the year preceding the election. Mr. J.C. Stalkart represented that he was the same person who was entered in the Rate payers roll as Mr. C. Stalkart, that he had paid rates and taxes aggregating some thousands of rupees and was fully qualified under Rule 2 of the Rules. The returning officer in his order recorded that he was not satisfied that Mr. J.C. Stalkart was the same person as Mr. C. Stalkart, and being of opinion that on that account Mr. Stalkart was not qualified in his personal capacity as a voter, he held that he was not entitled to stand as a candidate for election as a Commissioner of the Howrah Municipality. Mr. Stalkart applied against this order under Rule 29 of Rules to the Chairman of the Municipality who was also the District Magistrate. The Chairman upheld the order of the returning officer on two main grounds, first, that a person authorised under Rule 8 to vote for a Corporation could not be considered on that account a qualified voter, and secondly, that from the Vice-Chairman s report it is clear that he had ample grounds for his belief that C. Stalkart was not a mere clerical error for J.C. Stalkart but that the names referred to different persons. The Chairman went on to say that in his opinion the Vice-Chairman s action in the matter was perfectly regular, and that he had acted throughout in good faith. He, therefore, rejected the application. It is to be noticed that in dealing with the question under Rule 8 read with Rule 2, the Chairman appears to have questioned the legality of the rules passed by the Local Government and in dealing with the second question he expressed no opinion at all of his own on Mr. Stalkart s representation.

(3.) Mr. Stalkart having been rejected as a candidate for election, the election was duly held with regard to the other candidates who were held to be qualified for election and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit were duly elected as Commissioners for Ward No. 1.