KALI PROSAD SINGH Vs. MAKUTDHARI PROSAD SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rules framed by the Local Government under the Bihar and Orissa Local Self-Government Act require that the name of the candidate for election to the District Board shall be recorded on the roll of some electoral circle within the Sub- Division in which he is a candidate.

(2.) Makutdhari Prosad Sinha was nominated as a candidate for election in the Kutumba-Nabinagar Circle within the Aurangabad Sub-Division, being eligible by the fact that his name was borne on the electoral roll of Aurangabad. At the time of nomination, the Returning Officer rejected the candidate on the ground that his name was not found on the electoral roll of the Kutumba-Nabinagar Circle and no certified copy of any other electoral roll had been filed by him. The rejected candidate instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Aurangabad praying for a declaration under Section 42, Specific Relief Act, to the effect that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination was invalid, in which he was successful. An appeal from the Munsif's decision was dismissed by the District Judge of Gaya; and the contesting defendant now comes in second appeal from that decision.

(3.) Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad on behalf of the appellant argues in the first place that civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature. Under Rule 29 of the electoral rules framed by the Local Government, the Returning Officer is required to decide summarily regarding the qualification of candidates; and his decision is to be final. Rule 68, provides that all disputes arising under these rules, other than those in which the decision of the appointed officer is declared to be final shall be decided by the District Magistrate, and his decision shall be final. Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad argues that Rule 68 makes the District Magistrate the tribunal for the decision of election petitions; and the fact that his decision is to be final necessarily excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. It may be remarked that since the decision of the Returning Officer under Section 29 of the Act is final, it would follow that if Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad's contention were correct, no election could ever be set aside on the ground that a nomination had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.