R S NAIDU Vs. JRAMIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura in O.P. No. 27 of 1925.

(2.) The petitioner and counter-petitioner were the two candidates for the office of Chairman in the Madura Municipal Council. Each obtained an equal number of votes, and lots were drawn to decide the successful candidate. The petitioner was declared elected, and the counter- petitioner presented an election petition before the Subordinate Judge questioning the validity of the election because, among other reasons, the lots had been drawn not by the presiding councilor himself as required by Rule 4(ii) of the Rules for conduct of the Election of Chairman but by a boy, an utter stranger. The learned Subordinate Judge, without considering this, or other objections contained in the petition, has declared the election void on the ground that under the rules in the particular circumstance of this case there should have been no drawing of lots at all. The petitioner seeks to revise this order firstly, as being without jurisdiction, because the inquiry by the Subordinate Judge must, under the rules, be confined to the matters contained in the petition and, secondly, as being an incorrect interpretation of the Election Rules.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge being of opinion that the law was not clear upon the question whether he could raise pleas other than those embodied in the petition referred the matter to this Court, and was directed to dispose of it himself. Rule 1 of the Rules for the Decision of Disputes as to the Validity of an Election (Fort St. George Gazette, 30 November, 1920) lays down that no election... shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules. Such petition (R. 2) shall contain a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; and shall (R. 6) be enquired into by the Judge as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure. If in the opinion of the Judge [R. (ii)] the result of the election has been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of the rules the election of the returned candidate shall be void. Under Order 7,R. (ii) the Court is obliged to reject a plaint if it does not contain a cause of action. Thus, if the present petition had merely stated that the election should be treated as void, and had left it to the Judge to discover the invalidating circumstance the Judge would have been bound to reject it in limine (cf. Janardhanam v. Verghese (1924) 48 M L J 451].