THAKURDAS GUJRATHI Vs. SECY. OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for refund of a deposit made by the plaintiff in connexion with his election to the Legislative Assembly at Delhi. The plaintiff was one of the candidates for election. Before a person can offer himself for election he has to conform to certain rules and fulfil the conditions specified in them. These rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 64 and 129-A, Government of India Act, and are known as the Legislative Assembly Electoral Rules. One of the conditions is that candidates for election must make a deposit of Rs, 500 mainly as a guarantee of good faith, The rules specify the time and conditions upon which a refund can be claimed. The learned pleader for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the transaction must be regarded in the light of a contract with Government. He admits that he cannot claim a refund unconditionally and that if there is anything in the rules which prevent him from doing so, then he is out of Court, for, as he admits, when he offered himself for election and made his deposit, he agreed to be bound by the rules. But he states that a deposit in itself implies a right to a refund under the general law of the land, unless it is forfeited. The rules specify the conditions of forfeiture, and as he has infringed none of them, he is entitled to a refund. He states the remaining rules which deal with the time and manner of refund are enabling rules only, and since none of them apply to his case, he is entitled so ask for a refund after a reasonable time.

(2.) THE case for the Crown is that a refund can be claimed only in the manner and at the time specified by the rules. They have been framed in the different ways, but the result in the end is always the same. In some cases they state the deposit is forfeited outright, in others they give a right to refund provided the conditions specified are fulfilled. Consequently, as the right is strictly conditional, no refund can be claimed until the conditions specified have been fulfilled. In the present case the conditions are given in Rule 12(6), and since the plaintiff has not fulfilled them he cannot get his money back. It is also urged that the Courts have no power to deal with this matter because of Rule 48. The facts are , that the plaintiff deposited Rs. 500 on 16th June 1930 Under Rule 12(1), and was elected on 26th June 1930. Three days later he sent in his resignation, and it was accepted on 2nd July 1930. He did not make either the oath or affirmation prescribed by Rule 24. Rule 12(6) prescribes that: ...the deposit made in respect of a candidate who is elected shall, if it is not forfeited Under Sub-rule (5), be so returned as soon as may be, after the candidate has made the oath or affirmation herein prescribed.

(3.) THE House of Lords has decided that when jurisdiction has been given to a person or body in a certain matter it is not open to the Courts to substitute their own jurisdiction for that of this other body, unless there is evidence of mala fides, or it has acted arbitrarily or capriciously: see Weinberger v. Inglis (1919) AC 606. That was a case dealing with the reelection of a member of the London Stock Exchange, to that body and related to the interpretation of their rules. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Birkenhead) said: I am satisfied that the action of the Committee was warranted by the rules, and that the jurisdiction of the Courts cannot in such a case as this be substituted for that of the Committee.