P R NARAYANASWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. RSUBBARATNAM AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in O.P. No. 393 of 1926 setting aside the election of the 1 respondent in the Court below to the 12 Ward of the Trichinopoly Municipality on the application of a voter.

(2.) The facts of the case may be stated thus: In October, 1925,. a list of voters was prepared for the ward in question. This list contained 61 names which were not included in the previous list of voters. The election was held in September, 1926. Forty-one of the sixty-one new voters attended the election and voted. The petitioner who was then acting as an agent for the 2nd respondent, who was one of the candidates for the election, challenged these forty-one votes on the ground that they were not validly put on the electoral roll. Even when the names appeared in the preliminary list, Ex.. A-3 objection was taken to the inclusion of these names, but the revising authority decided against the objection. The election resulted in the election of the 1 respondent by a majority of 270 votes. It is therefore clear that, even if the 41 voters were not entitled to vote, their inclusion in the electoral roll did not materially affect the election. The 1 respondent would have been successful in any event. But the application to set aside the election of the 1 respondent was made under Rule 11(a) of the Rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of elections. Rule,11(b) does not obviously apply as the election has not been materially affected by the inclusion of the 41 voters. The ground of the petition is that the 1 respondent, who was returned as the candidate, "has committed or abetted the commission of any of the offences described in Secs.52 to 58 of the District Municipalities Act." Section 52 of the Act refers to the case of a person who does not possess the qualifications to vote claiming such qualifications or by any other deceitful means procuring improper entry of names in the electoral roll. Section 55 refers to the offence of a person who applies for a ballot paper at an election knowing that he is not qualified to vote thereat. The Subordinate Judge has found that the 1 respondent was guilty of the offence under Section 52(1) and of having abetted the offence under Section 55 and set aside the election. For the purpose of Rule 11(a) it is not necessary that the election itself should be materially affected by the commission of any of the offences. The 1 respondent files this revision petition.

(3.) It is argued for him by Mr. Ramadoss that the electoral roll is final and that after the electoral roll was completed there can be no question of the offences being committed under Section 52 or 55 of the Act and no such enquiry can be made. If this contention is correct, there would never be any scope for the operation of Secs.52 and 55. But apart from this obvious consideration Mr. Ramadoss referred to some decisions of this Court. The decision in Palanisami Pillai V/s. Srinivasarangachariar (1924) 47 M.L.J. 795 refers to the case of a candidate's name being wrongly entered in the electoral roll. It was held that the electoral roll was final. At any rate, there was no question in that case of any offence having been committed under Secs.52 and 55. That case cannot, therefore, help the petitioner. In Janardha-nan V/s. Verghese (1924) 48 M.L.J. 451 it was held that no ground was made out for an enquiry under Rule 11. Krishnan, J.'s decision in that case is really against the petitioner. He there refers to Rule 11(a) and observes: 1 have looked carefully into the allegations in the petitions filed by the objectors in these two cases but I can find none there of any offence having been committed under Section 52 by the candidates or their agents.