SURAJ NARAIN Vs. JANG BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The municipal elections were held in Cawnpore in March, 1923. Suraj Narain was a candidate, as was also one Muhammad Siddiq Hafia Both of these men were defeated by an opponent who secured a larger number of votes. Both of these gentlemen thought they had a case for unseating their opponents and each of them proposed to proceed under the Municipalities Act, Local Act No. II of 1916, and lodged petitions. Section 20 prescribes the form and the manner in which the petition shall be presented, and it also defines who1 are the persons who are permitted by law to present a petition. Section 22 defines who is to hear petitions, and Clause (2) of that section lays down how the proceedings may start by presentation.

(2.) Taking the case, first of all, of Suraj Narain, Miscellaneous Case No. 211 of 1923, the material dates and facts are as follows: The election was held on the 20 of March, 192S, and on the 23 of March Suraj Narain attended the court of the Collector. The petition which he had with him was, as regards formal parts, in proper form; that is to say it was headed as being a matter which would be dealt with in the court of the Commissioner (it was stated to be presented "through the Collector, Cawnpore district") and recited that it was a petition under Section 19 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act No. II of 1916. When Suraj Narain reached the court the Collector had not arrived, but the Joint Magistrate was sitting; and the Joint Magistrate, in answer to an inquiry by the petitioner, has recorded in a letter of the 7 of April, that a practice does exist in that court, which undoubtedly is for the convenience of the public, whereby petitions intended for the Collector are received by the Joint Magistrate and made over to the Collector on his arrival. Suraj Narain, relying upon that practice, in fact handed to the Joint Magistrate the petition, and the Joint Magistrate, in pursuance of that practice, handed over to the Collector the document. That was done on the 23 of March. So that Suraj Narain, who had originally 15 days within which to deliver to the proper authorities a proper petition, in fact had got that petition into the hands of the proper authority, namely the Collector, by the 23 of, March. It is suggested that we are bound to construe Secs.20 and 22 so strictly as to hold that no presentation of a petition can avail the petitioner unless the petitioner himself personally comes face to face personally with the Collector, and delivers it into the Collector's hands. That undoubtedly is the safest and wisest thing to do. But the position as regards the Collector's court at Cawnpore was that in reliance upon the praotice Suraj Narain was content to follow that practice of handing documents intended for the Collector to the Joint Magistrate. Inasmuch as the petition reached the Collector well within time, we are of opinion that it was a proper presentation and that the petition ought to have been heard and disposed of upon the merits.

(3.) The next case with which we propose to deal is that of Muhammad Siddiq Hafiz. because there is some similarity in the facts. We will deal with the case of Durga Shankar later.