T S SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI Vs. AMAHMED MIRAN SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications made by the same party for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing proceedings of the Election Commissioner of Tenkasi. C.M.P. No. 5275 of 1933 relates to O.P. No. 41 of 1933 on the file of that officer and C.M.P. No. 5276 of 1933 relates to O.P. No. 40 of 1933 on his file.

(2.) On 21 March 1933 the President of the Tenkasi Panchayat Board resigned. The Vice- President in accordance with the rules took steps for a meeting to be held to elect a new President and sent out notices on that behalf on the 23rd. But the President of the Taluk Board, being under the impression that the Vice-President had taken no steps, proceeded to take action such as can be taken in such an event under Section 42, Madras Local Boards Act, and wrote on the 24 to the Vice-President of the Panchayat Board asking him to convene a meeting on 30 March 1938 for the election of a President. An inadequate time was allowed to the Vice-President for replying to this letter and as no reply was received within the time allowed, the Taluk Board President, acting under Section 42, appointed a member of the Panchayat Board to convene a meeting for the election of a President on the 30 March. The Vice-President of the Panchayat Board meanwhile went on with his arrangements for holding an election meeting on the 31 March. On the 30 March an election took place and at this the petitioner to these petitions was unanimously elected. Though respondent 1 here, who was petitioner in the two O. Petitions protested against the legality of the meeting, his protest was overruled and so he left it along with some others. On the following day, 31 March 1933, there was another election, this being the one for which the Vice-President had arranged, and at this again the Petitioner to these two petitions was elected unanimously.

(3.) The Election Commissioner has set aside both the elections and has ordered a fresh election to be held. I shall deal first with C.M.P. No. 5275 which is concerned with O.P. No. 41 of 1933, the petition which though later in number is concerned with the earlier of the-two elections. The Election Commissioner has held that the first election was void, in that the Taluk Board President had no jurisdiction to act under Section 42, and, further, had acted with material irregularity and illegality in not giving the Vioe-President sufficient time to comply with his order and had acted with undue haste by not waiting for the receipt of a reply from the Vice-President before taking action under Section 42. That this finding is correct is not now disputed. What is in question is, what are the consequences that should follow therefrom? There is one point taken for the petitioner which I cannot follow, It is contended that as the election on 30 March was held to be void ab initio it was not an election held under the Act and therefore the Election Commissioner could not deal with it. But an election to be void has to be declared to be so and it can only be so declared by an Election Commissioner in proper proceedings, and so the logical result of this contention could only be a topsy turvy situation such as is known as Gilbertian. The argument does not require serious consideration.