C TADULINGA MUDALIAR Vs. MRSAKUNTALA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election Petition No. 5 of 1948 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, was filed by Mrs. Sakuntala Bai, the first respondent to this petition against three persons two of whom had been declared as the successful candidates in the election to the Corporation of Madras from the 40 Division (Chepauk) held on 30 September, 1948. The third respondent to her petition is the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. In her petition for setting aside the election, the first respondent herein alleged several instances of irregularities in the conduct of the election as well as false personations and misrepresentations practised by the candidates. It was alleged that there was false personation of voters on a large scale and quite a large number of false votes were recorded in favour of the successful candidates. It was further alleged that many dead persons were " resuscitated " and voters who had left the division long before were impersonated and their votes recorded. The successful candidates filed written statements denying these allegations and the enquiry is now pending before the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. M.P. No. 9782 of 1948 in Election Petition No. 5 of 1948 was filed on the 20 December, 1948, praying that the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras may be directed to produce and deposit the documents mentioned therein in the Court and the first respondent herein may be granted leave to inspect the documents. The documents mentioned in the petition are ten in number beginning with " the marked copy of electoral rolls used by the Polling Officers at the four booths in the 40 Devision, Chepauk, on the day of election " and ending with " the statement of votes secured with particulars of invalid and duplicate votes polled for each candidate prepared at the counting of votes by the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras." Among these are to be found : counted ballot papers; tendered ballot papers; unused ballot papers; spoilt ballot papers; counterfoils of ballot papers, etc.

(2.) On this application the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes gave notice only to the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras and passed the order which is now sought to be revised by the petitioner, one of the successful candidates.

(3.) It is common ground that no notice of M.P. No. 9782 of 1948 was given to the two contesting respondents before the lower Court but the only party that was represented before the learned Chief Judge was the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras. The learned Judge ordered that the inspection of the documents mentioned in the application should be given at the Corporation office by some responsible officer of the Corporation by breaking open the seals after previous notice to the parties and in their presence and after the inspection is over the packets should be re-sealed in the presence of the parties. It was further directed that if the inspection lasted for more than a day, the packets should be re- sealed at the close of each day and be broken open on the next day in the presence of the parties and the inspection conducted as aforesaid. The re-sealing was to be done by the Officer who opens the packets. It is noteworthy that the first respondent's prayer was that the documents mentioned in her application should be produced and deposited in the lower Court and that she might be granted leave to inspect the same thereafter; but the learned Judge, so I am informed, found it inconvenient to keep the custody of the ballot papers and other documents and therefore after getting the consent of the counsel for the Commissioner of the Corporation directed the inspection in the office of the Commissioner itself. It is this order giving an opportunity to the defeated candidate to have what Mr. Rangaramanujam for the petitioner characterises as "a roving enquiry in order to fish out information" that is now sought to be set aside on the ground of irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Court.