V E RAJABAHADUR MUDALIAR Vs. AMVISWANATHA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, dated 31 October, 1927, by which he dismissed the petitioner's objection petition to the election of 1 respondent, as the President of the Union Board of Arkonam. By G. O. No. 4290 L and. M, dated 5 October 15)26 the Local Government had, in pursuance of Section 45 (1) of the Madras Local Boards Act dissolved the said Union Board and ordered it to be reconstituted and under Clause (3) of the same section appointed Mr. Muthusami Aiyar, Sub-Magistrate of Arkonam, (2nd respondent), as Special Officer to exercise all the powers and duties of the Union Board and its President, till it was properly re-constituted. The Special Officer was instructed to make arrangements for the election of the 9 elected members, and the President, Taluk Board, Ranipet, was requested to nominate the three nominated members and when that was done the Special Officer was to arrange for the election of the President so that the re-constituted Union Board might be brought into existence as early as possible. The Special Officer had got the nine elected members elected and the three nominated members nominated. Then he called a meeting of the members to elect a President for 20 April, 1927. This date was by subsequent notice changed to 25 April, 1927, as the Special Officer could not be present on the 20 owing to Easter. At the meeting held on 25 April, under the Presidency of the Special Officer there was a tie, the petitioner and the 1 respondent each securing 5 votes at the ballot. Thereupon the Special Officer proceeded to decide the question by casting lots, which he did by using 2 sets of two slips each. One set contained the names of the candidates. Of the other set, one paper bore a cross mark to indicate the prize or President; the other slip was blank. Both sets of slips were independently shaken and put aside and one slip from each set was drawn by the hand of a little boy aged under 10. At first the petitioner's name was drawn along with the blank slip. Then the 1 respondent's name was drawn along with the prize President's slip. The first respondent was declared elected.

(2.) The petitioner in his petition to the lower Court objected to the 1 respondent's election on various grounds of which four were pressed in the lower Court; (1) The Special Officer has no authority to preside over the meeting of 25 April as he had become functus officio by the election and nomination of the full complement of members; (2) he had no power to adjourn the meeting from 20 to 25 April and so the meeting on the latter date was not validly held; (3) the secrecy of the ballot which resulted in a tie was violated by the use by two of 1st respondent's supporters of a blue pencil to mark their votes; (4) the drawing of lots was not done in the Usual manner or according to the rules, and the petitioner's name having been first drawn he should have been declared elected. The lower Court rejected all these grounds of objection. The petitioner's learned Advocate has pressed the same objections in this Court.

(3.) The contention that the Special Officer had no power to preside over the meetings, at which the election of the new President was to take place, is based on the theory, unfounded in my opinion, that the new Board had been fully re-constituted by the election of the elected members and the nomination of the nominated members, and that thereupon the duties of the Special Officer were at an end. By Section 12 (3), every Union Board shall elect one of its members to be a President, to whom by various provisions of the Act, most important functions of an administrative and executive character are assigned. In fact, a Board without a President is unthinkable and unworkable under the Act and it follows that till the President was elected, the Board was not fully constituted The twelve persons who had been elected or nominated had not taken the oath or entered on their office and could not be left to shift for themselves at that stage. None of them had any authority to summon a meeting of his future colleagues or to administer the oath, or to conduct an election for the President. It is, in fact, to prevent such an impasse that Section 45 empowers the Local Government to invest the Special Officer with all such powers of the Board and its President, as it may determine between the dissolution and the re-constitution of a Local Board and in the G. O. dated 5th;) October, 1926, the Special Officer, was expressly instructed to arrange for the election of the President. This was exactly what 2nd respondent did and he did no more. This contention fails.