K PARTHASARATHI NAIDU GARU Vs. CKOTESWARA RAO GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the revision of the decision of the District Judge acting under the powers conferred upon him by the Rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920. By the Rule of the Rules issued by the Local Government under the powers conferred on them by Section 199(2)(c), "No election of a Member or of a President of a District, Taluq, or Union Board shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules, to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction." A preliminary point is taken that this Court has no power of revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure over the decision of a District or Subordinate Judge when acting under that rule. That depends on whether the Judges therein referred to are acting as Courts, or acting merely as persona designata, that is to say, persons selected to act in the matter in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges. There has been considerable conflict of opinion on this point since the coming into force of this Act, and I do not think that the decisions that have been given on the matter are of great assistance to us in arriving at the proper conclusion, and we have to look at the Act and the Rules and the law as it stands. The law is, I think, quite definitely established by the decision in National Telephone Co. Ltd. V/s. Postmaster General (1913) A.C. 546 in the words of Lord Parker at page 562 that "where by statute matters are referred to the determination of a Court of Record with no further provision, the necessary implication is, I think, that the Court will determine the matters, as a Court. Its jurisdiction, is enlarged but all the incidents of such jurisdiction, including the right of appeal from its decision, remain the same." If this matter bad been referred to the District Court or Subordinate Judge's Court in terms, in my judgment, no question could arise, because, following the words of the judgment just quoted, the matter would be determined by the Court as a Court, it being given jurisdiction for this particular purpose, and all the incidents which include the incident of being liable to revision must follow, although no appeal would lie in this particular case because an appeal has been expressly precluded, for by Section 57(2) of the Act, and by the Rules "this decision is to be final." But as the word "Judge" is used and not the word "Court," one has to look carefully to see whether the word "Judge" was used of him in his capacity as Judge or in his personal capacity, and I think great light is thrown upon this by two other rules. Rule 12(2) of the Rules for election refers to "an election or other competent Court" and it is quite clear that it is there referring to a Court of a District Judge or Subordinate Judge; and, by Rule 4(3) of the Rules for the conduct of inquiries, power is given to the District or Subordinate Judge in certain oases "to direct any Court subordinate to him to hold the inquiry." I find it impossible to hold that a reference to a Judge with power to refer to a Court subordinate to him can mean anything else than reference to a Judge sitting as a Judge in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction extended for that purpose. For these reasons, in my judgment the power of revision lies.

(2.) It is further argued that the fact that the decision of this Judge is, by Section 57 of the Act and by the Rules final, preclude any revision. There is really no authority adduced in support of that proposition and, in my judgment, it would be quite contrary to the whole object and intention of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. so to hold. That Section only applies where there is no appeal. I know of no better way of directing that there shall be no appeal than by the legislature stating that the decision of a particular Court shall be final. It is the ordinary mode of expression used for the purpose in much of the legislation in England on which this legislation is founded; and, where the whole object of revision is to prevent a Court, from which there is no appeal, acting contrary to its jurisdiction, a finding that it is the law that, because the words used are "the decision shall be final," a Court ordinarily subject to the revisional powers of this Court, should be permitted to act wholly without jurisdiction without the aggrieved party being entitled to any remedy, would in my judgment be untenable, and that would be the effect of deciding this second point in favour of the contention put forward. On these grounds, in my judgment, this Court has revisional power and the preliminary point fails.

(3.) The petitioner was duly elected President of the Narasaraopet Taluq Board. A petition was subsequently filed before the District Judge of Guntur for a declaration that this election may be declared void and annulled and that the petitioner one Chinnatalacheruvu Koteswara Rao, a defeated candidate in the election, should be declared to be duly elected. The District Judge found that the petitioner had not been properly appointed a member of the Talaq Board and was, therefore, not eligible for election to the Presidentship of that Board, and the matter comes before us on a petition for revision of that order.