T EKAMBARA NAICKER Vs. JANAKIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late in the afternoon of Wednesday, last week, the 29 September, Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar presented this petition urgently and moved for a rule nisi. The application is by two voters in the Municipal Electorate of the Royapettah or the 29 Division of Madras City and is for a mandatory order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against the Commissioner of the City Corporation restraining him from holding the election of the Divisional Councillor for that division otherwise than in conformity with the rules relating thereto. It was stated that the election had been announced to be held on the following day the 30 September and the application was moved and argued ex parte for an order nisi.

(2.) Having regard to the short time within which I had to make up my mind and the late stage at which the application was moved and what may be regarded as the serious consequences of stopping an election announced to be held on the following day, I should have been disposed to refuse an interim order, had I not had prima facie grounds to satisfy myself that some of the questions raised were of such importance that even the consequences of the stopping of the election would not comparatively be by any means serious. It was thereupon that I issued an order nisi and made it returnable on the following morning to be heard as the very first motion in the list.

(3.) The order nisi issued by me was in terms merely restraining the Commissioner from holding the election until further order of Court and it was so made expressly for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to hold the election on the 30 itself if in the course of the day I should come to the conclusion that the rule should not be made absolute and should be discharged. But as it was, neither side was able to finish the argument on that day and Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar the learned vakil for the respondent also intimated to me that there was no idea of holding the election that day in any case. The matter has now been argued at great length on both sides by Mr. N. Chandrasekara Iyer for the applicants raising every possible contention and with great ingenuity and astuteness, and by Mr. S. Rangaswami Aiyangar for,the respondent, the Commissioner of the Corporation with great strenuousness and considerable learning and research raising as it seemed to me, every point that could possibly be urged in the matter. And I have also taken time for a consideration of two or three of the many questions that have been urged and argued on both sides, because though in respect of most of the matters I had no difficulty in arriving at conclusions as the discussion proceeded and closed, still with regard to some of the matters I have felt great difficulty in coming to a satisfactory determination. I may also add that having regard to all the circumstances I have deemed it desirable to pronounce my judgment in the case as early as possible.