1964 Supreme(AP) 91
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : NARASIMHAM, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Malla Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Malliah - Respondent
Decided On : 06-15-64
The validity of a nomination paper is to be decided by the Returning Officer and any person aggrieved by the determination has the right of appeal to the District Judge. The decision of the District Judge on appeal is final and conclusive and cannot be called in question in any Court or Tribunal, including an Election Tribunal.
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - NOMINATION - VALIDITY - ELECTION PETITION - JURISDICTION - HYDERABAD DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1956 - SECTIONS 20, 21, 24 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and the respondent contested the elections to the Municipality of Sangareddy from Constituency No. 1 (General seat). The appellant secured 214 votes as against 116 by the respondent and was declared duly elected. The respondent filed an election petition alleging that the appellant was disqualified by reason of his having a subsisting interest in a contract with the town Municipal Committee. The Election Tribunal set aside the election of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the validity of the nomination paper is to be decided by the Returning Officer and any person aggrieved by the determination has the right of appeal to the District Judge. The decision of the District Judge on appeal is final and conclusive and cannot be called in question in any Court or Tribunal, including an Election Tribunal. The court further held that the provisions of section 21 of the Act prevail over the provisions of section 24, and therefore, the Election Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the nomination paper.
Issues: Whether the Election Tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the nomination paper.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of section 21 of the Act prevail over the provisions of section 24, and therefore, the Election Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the nomination paper. The court reasoned that the scheme of the Act is that questions as to the qualification or disqualification should be decided before the actual poll takes place.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and upheld the election of the appellant.
( 1 ) IN this Special Appeal we are called upon to interpret the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 24. of the Hyderabad District Municipalities act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) THE appellant and the respondent contested the elections to the Municipality of Sangareddy from Constitutency No. 1 (General seat) held on the 4th of December, 1962. The nominations of the candidates were scrutinised in the beginning of december, 1962, and the Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper of the appellant. The poll took place on 4th December, 1962. As the appellant secured 214 votes as against 116 by the respondent, he was declared duly elected to the town Municipal Committee of Sangareddy. It is to invalidate this election that the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Medak, was invoked under section 24 of the act.
( 3 ) THE election petition was founded on the allegations inter alia that the appellant was disqualified by reason of his having a subsisting interest in a contract with the town Municipal Committee. The Election Commissioner, while holding on all issues against the respondent, accepted his plea that the appellant was disqualified having had a subsisting-interest in a contract with the municipality. He overruled the objection of the appellant that the question of validity of the nomination could not be debated before the Election Tribunal having regard to the provisions of section 21 of the Act. In the result, he set aside the election of the appellant. It is this order of the Election Tribunal that is assailed before us. The same contention is raised by the appellant in this appeal. As the answer to the question formulated in this appeal is to be found in the relevant provisions of the Act, we will extract them here.
( 4 ) SECTION 20 deals with the appointment of dates for nomination etc. , and it is not necessary to set out the terms thereof. Section 21, omitting portions which are not quite relevant for purposes of this, enquiry, recites :"21. (1) An appeal shall lie to the District Judge of the District in which the municipality is situated as herein provided from any decision of a Returning Officer accepting or rejecting a nomination paper. (2) Any candidate aggrieved by a decision of the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting a nomination paper may present an appeal therefrom to the District Judge within a period of seven days, from the date of publication of the list of validly nominated candidates : provided that such candidate has, not later than 3 o clock in the afternoon of the day next following the said date given the Returning Officer a notice in writing of his intention to appeal under this section. (3) to (9) (10) The decision of the District Judge on appeal under this section and subject only to such decision the decision of the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination of a candidate shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any Court or Tribunal, including an Election Tribunal. "
( 5 ) IT is manifest that the question of validity of a nomination paper has to be decided by the Returning Officer and any person aggrieved by the determination has the right of appeal to the District Judge and any adjudication of a District judge on appeal is final. Even if no appeal is carried to the District Judge in this behalf and no decision is invited, a finality is attached to the decision of the Returning officer either accepting or rejecting the nomination and there can be no agitation regarding the validity of the nomination at a later stage. It is specifically mentioned in sub-section (10) that the matter cannot once again be debated before the Election tribunal.
( 6 ) WE will now turn to section 24 which provides for questioning the legality and propriety of elections by means of Election Petitions. It says :"24. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 21 no election held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election