ROSHAN BUX Vs. ABDUL AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree passed by the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal against the decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the suit with costs. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted for a declaration that proceedings relating to the election of a Chairman of the Town Area of Nawabganj, District Bareilly, from 20 April 1940 to 28 April 1940, were illegal and void. It was also prayed that an injunction might be issued restraining defendant l from functioning as the Chairman of the Town Area and also restraining defendants 2 to 4 from allowing defendant l to perform his duties as Chairman. Rupees 200 as damages were also claimed from defendants 1 to 2. The antecedent facts necessary for a proper appreciation of the points in issue in this case were these:

(2.) Roshan Bux, the plaintiff was the Chairman of the Town Area of Nawabganj from 1 June 1939 to April 1940 when fresh elections were to take place. Nomination paper for the election of the Chairman was filed by the plaintiff on 20 April 1940. Abdul Aziz, defendant 1, also filed his nomination paper for election as Chairman. Mr. Gobardhan Das, the Tahsildar of Nawabganj, was the Returning Officer in connexion with this election. On 23 April 1940 the nomination paper of the plaintiff was rejected by the Returning Officer. On 28th April 1940 Abdul Aziz, defendant 1, the only other candidate duly nominated for election to the Chairmanship-was declared elected as the new Chairman. Thereupon, the plaintiff instituted this suit impleading Abdul Aziz as defendant 1, Mr. Gobardhan Das, the Tahsildar, in his capacity as the Returning Officer as defendant 2, the United Provinces Government as defendant 8 and the Town Area, Nawabganj, as defendant 4, and prayed for the reliefs mentioned above. The plaintiff's case in substance was that the Returning Officer had a grudge against him and that the plaintiffs nomination paper was perfectly valid but it was rejected by the Returning Officer without any reason and the order of the Returning Officer was capricious, arbitrary and malicious. The suit was contested by all the defendants on various grounds, but the only pleas set up in defence which are material for the purposes of this appeal were these : that there was no cause of action for this suit, that the order rejecting the nomination paper was passed under Section 7, Town Areas Act, and was perfectly valid, that the suit was barred by Rule 11, Town Areas Election Rules, and that defendant 2 was not actuated by malice or any other improper motive in rejecting the nomination paper of the plaintiff.

(3.) The Court of first instance found: (1) that the order of rejection of the nomination paper was justified by the provisions of Section 7, Town Areas Act, and it was not malicious or illegal, (2) that the order of rejection of the nomination paper was final by reason of Rule 11, Town Areas Election Rules, and it could not be challenged in the civil Court except on the ground that it was ultra vires or passed without jurisdiction or passed in contravention of the judicial procedure. In view of the above findings, it was held that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit and it was accordingly dismissed with costs.