O A O K LATCHMANAN CHETTIAR Vs. JSKANNAPPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition brought by Rao Bahadur Latchmanan Chettiar against an order made by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court in the following circumstances. On the 17 August, 1926, the petitioner was nominated as a candidate for election as a Divisional Councillor for the 29 Division of the City. It is not in dispute that the nomination paper was regular on the face of it but it was said that the petitioner was disqualified for these reasons. For some time past he had been an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of the City. On the 11 August he tendered his resignation having in mind, no doubt, Section 52(1)(b)(iv) of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919 which disqualifies a Presidency Magistrate which has been held to include an Honorary Magistrate for election as a Councillor. That resignation reached the Government on the 14 August and the Government passed a G.O. in the following terms: The Governor in Council withdraws the powers of Honorary Presidency Magistrate for the City of Madras conferred on the undermentioned gentleman (i. e., the petitioner) who has resigned his appointment.

(2.) On the 20 August an objection was put forward by the respondents alleging that the withdrawal by the candidate from his appointment as Presidency Magistrate only took effect by virtue of the G.O. withdrawing his powers which was subsequent to his nomination, and that therefore the nomination was bad. The objection was heard by the Commissioner acting under Rule 4 hereinafter to be referred to of the Rules made under the Act and a petition was put in for revision before the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes under the same rule. Both officers pronounced the nomination to be invalid and struck his name off the list of nominations in accordance with Rule 3. Against that decision of the Chief Judge this revision petition is brought.

(3.) Two main points have been argued before us the first, which goes to the root of the whole matter, being that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any such petition, on the ground that the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court is not a Court subject to the machinery of the Civil P. C. but a persona designata whose decision was not only not appealable but cannot be called up in revision. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court [Parthasarathi Naidu V/s. Koteswara Rao (1923) I.L.R. 47 M 369 : 46 M L J 201 (F B)] that the fact that his decision is not appealable so far from being a ground for holding that revision will not lie points decisively in the opposite direction. The appellant's contention as to the character in which the Chief Judge decided this matter depends partly upon a consideration of the relevant sections of the Municipal Act and the rules made thereunder, and partly on the effect of certain authorities which were cited to us. Section 59(2)1(b) of the Act provides that the Governor in Council may make rules which may provide for the adjudication by the Court of Small Causes of disputes... arising out of elections.