NAWAL KISHORE AGARWALA Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for (a) a declaration that the election of 16 members of the Municipal Board of Gorakhpur was illegal and accordingly the Board is not legally and validly constituted; (b) an injunction restraining the Board from acting as such; and (c) refund of Rs. 50 which had been deposited as security by the plaintiff who was a candidate at the election. The first Court decreed the claim for refund of the amount of security, but dismissed the rest of the claim; its finding was that there was some irregularity or illegality committed in the preparation of the electoral rolls. On appeal the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the suit does not lie in the civil Court at all, and has accordingly dismissed it.

(2.) It cannot be disputed that where there is any special or local law in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred by any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law, nothing in the Code of of Civil Procedure will apply. This is expressly provided in Section 4, Civil P.C. It follows that where there is such special or local law the civil Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 9, Civil P.C., to entertain a claim merely because it is of a civil nature. So far as the reliefs for the declaration regarding the illegality of the election of the members of the Board and the injunction against the Board are concerned, the point is covered by the ruling of the Full Bench in Abdul Rahman V/s. Abdul Rahman where it was laid down that no suit would lie in a civil Court for a declaration that the result of a Municipal election has been wrongly declared and that the plaintiff is the person entitled to be declared elected. It follows that no injunction can be issued against the Board for the same purpose. The learned advocate for the appellant has then urged before us that so far as relief (c) for the refund of the security money is concerned, the matter is cognizable by a civil Court. His argument is that the claim is brought against the Municipal Board expressly which has received this amount and has appropriated it. It is argued that no relief could have been claimed against the Municipal Board before the election officer, and it is further urged that there is no provision in the Municipalities Act or in the rules framed the re-under under which the election officer can pass an order directing a refund of such security after it has been once forfeited. It is therefore contended that there is no special or local law affecting this matter, and accordingly the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred.

(3.) The case put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint was that the electoral rolls which had been prepared had not been compiled from the lists and registers maintained in the Municipal office under Rule 5 (Election Rules for 1931), and that the Returning Officer appointed by the District Magistrate committed mistakes in not compiling the electoral roll from such registers. The allegation was that when the plaintiff after having been nominated went about to find out the houses of the voters with reference to the lists and registers in the Municipal office, he came to know that the rolls were not prepared from such lists and registers and did not tally with them, and accordingly he could not trace some of the voters for the purpose of canvassing. This overlooks the provision in Rule 6 that the Returning Officer can depart from the Municipal lists and registers, although it is necessary for him to record his reasons therefor. It does not follow therefore that the electoral roll must exactly tally with the lists and registers originally maintained at the Municipal office.