PRIYANATH GHOSAL Vs. TARAK NATH DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of a suit for setting aside an election of the defendant-appellant as the president of the Hariharpur Union Board on the ground that he is not a resident of the said Union as contemplated by Section 7(2), Village Self-Government Act, 1919. Both the Courts below have found that the defendant's election as a member and president of the Union Board was illegal inasmuch as he was not qualified to be a member of the Union Board. According to Section 7, Clause 2 of the Act, one of the qualifications of a voter or a member of the Union Board is that he must be a resident within the Union and the explanation states that a person shall be deemed to be a resident within the Union within the meaning of Sub-section 2 if he ordinarily resides within its limits. Both the Courts below have found that inasmuch as the defendant did not ordinarily reside within the limits of the Union, he is not qualified as a voter. This is a finding of fact with which this Court is not entitled to interfere.

(2.) But in this appeal it is contended that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question as to the qualifications of a voter inasmuch as under the rules which were framed under Section 101, sub.s. 2 the Local Government has made rules determining who shall decide disputes regarding such election. Under Rule 9 of the Rules of the Village Self- Government Act the circle officer shall ascertain whether all the candidates are duly qualified under Sub-section 2 of Section 7 of the Act and his decision on the point shall be final.

(3.) This is a Rule framed under Section 101, Sub-section 2, Village Self-Government Act, and according to this rule the circle officer shall be the final authority for deciding as to whether the candidates are duly qualified under Sub-section 2 of Section 7 of the Act. It appears to me that since the circle officer's decision is final, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with his decision as to whether any of the candidates is duly qualified under Sub-section 2 of Section 7, Village Self-Government Act. The trial Court has found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction in this matter because the circle officer acted without jurisdiction. But it is not clear how he can be said to have acted without jurisdiction. He had jurisdiction to decide whether the voter was duly qualified. He may have come to a wrong decision on this point, but certainly he appears to have had jurisdiction to decide the matter and under Rule 9 of the rules his decision on this point is final.