KONA THIMMA REDDI Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF ANANTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the Government Order cancelling his election to the Gooty Taluk Board is ultra vires and illegal and does not affect the validity of his election, for a mandatory injunction directing his name to be published in the Fort St. George Gazette as duly elected, for an injunction prohibiting the Government from publishing the name of his rival candidate Subba Rao and for the recovery of Rs. 100 as damages. No evidence has been adduced in the suit. The election in question was held on the 13 of November 1915. It is not disputed that the plaintiff obtained the majority of votes, that the defeated candidate Subba Rao put in an objection petition and that the Government set aside the election of the plaintiff and ordered a fresh election on the ground that the plaintiff's presence in the Taluk Board as a member would bring the Local Fund Administration into contempt. This order of the Government is questioned by the plaintiff on two grounds. The first is that the rules under which the Government purported to act are ultra vires and that consequently he is not affected by the order, and secondly that, even if the rules are intra vires, there was no inquiry by the Government into the matter, that he was not given an opportunity of showing cause against the allegations made by the rival candidate and that on the merits it could not be said that his presence in the Taluk Board could have the undesirable consequences referred to by the Government as a ground for invalidating his election. He sets out his qualifications in the plaint.

(2.) The defence by the Secretary of State for India in Council was that the rules framed by the Government were valid, that under the rules the Government was not bound to give any notice to the plaintiff, that the discretion vested in the Government was absolute and unquestionable by a Civil Court and that the Government having made such inquiry as it thought fit and having come to the conclusion that it came, it was not open to the plaintiff to question the validity of its act. The Government denies that the plaintiff is entitled to any damages.

(3.) Two points were argued by Mr. Richmond before us, in Second Appeal. The first was that the rules were ultra, vires and the second was that the whole proceedings were vitiated by the fact that no notice was given to the plaintiff who consequently had no opportunity to show cause against the objections raised by his rival candidate, a violation of the elementary principles of natural justice, which, without more, would invalidate the proceedings. As regards the first point, Section 16 of the Local Boards Act runs as follows: The other members of the Taluk Board may be (a) either wholly appointed by the Governor in Council, or (b) partly so appointed and partly appointed by election by the members of the panchayats in the taluk from among their own number or by the tax-payers and inhabitants of the taluk, subject to such rules and conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Governor in Council.