VAIDYANATHA THEVAR Vs. ERSMURUGIAHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondent were candidates for the office of President of the Union Board of Tiruthuraipundi. An election was held on 27 February 1928 for the office when 9 votes were polled. The petitioner got 5 and respondent 4. The petitioner was declared elected. The respondent filed an election petition before the District Judge, East Tanjore, who held that two votes polled for the petitioner were invalid votes as the members who gave the votes were disqualified members and in consequence the respondent was declared elected as President of the Union Board of Tiruthuraipundi. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition. There were 11 members on the Union Board of Tiruthuraipundi of whom two, Govindaswamy Thevar and Varadarajulii Naidu, failed to attend the meetings of the Board held on 20 September 1927 and 30 November 1927. They having failed to attend for three consecutive months the meetings of the Board, they ceased to be members of the Board under Section 56, Local Boards Act. They, however, attended the meeting of 23 December 1927 ostensibly without any objection by the other members and they were restored to membership at the meeting held on 18 January 1928. The election meeting was on 27th February 1928. The District Judge held that these two persons ceased to be members before the date of the December meeting and they not having been restored to membership at that meeting, their subsequent restoration at the meeting of January was not a legal one and therefore they were not the members of the Board and consequently their votes were not valid votes.

(2.) Mr. Venkatarama Sastri for the petitioner contends that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether any of the members of the Board who took part in the election were or were not disqualified members. Before considering the question whether these men were qualified members or not we have to determine whether questions as-to the qualification of a member could be raised in an enquiry relating to the election of the President. In this connexion. we must consider what the rules governing the election are as well as the rules governing enquiries into the conduct of elections. The rules for the conduct of ejection of members to the Union Board as well as the Taluk Board and District Board are framed under the Act and any enquiry into an election offence or an irregularity has to be governed by the rules framed for the conduct of elections under the Act. The rules for the election of Presidents and Vice-Presidents provide the course to be adopted for the elections. It is not necessary for the present purpose to consider the rules for the election of Presidents and Vice-Presidents, but it is necessary to consider the-rules for the conduct of enquiries and the decision of disputes relating to elections for the office of the President and the Vice- President.

(3.) After an election is over, it can be contested on several grounds set out in Rule 11. According to that rule an election maybe set aside on the ground of the commission of election offences, procuring the result of the election by corrupt practices or by hiring conveyance, etc.; and Clause (c) is as follows: The result of the election has been materially affected by any irregularity in respect of a nomination paper, or by the improper reception or refusal of a vote, or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder.