Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.
Nunna Veerraju
Versus
The District Munsif of Ramachandrapuram
Writ Petns. Nos. 597 to 600, 613, 614, 616 and 630 of 1953
Decided On : 30-03-1955
ELECTION - VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT - ELECTION COMMISSIONER - CONSTITUTION OF - RULES FRAMED BY GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - WHETHER EXCESSIVE OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL - WHETHER LEGISLATURE CAN ABANDON ITS LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS - WHETHER CREATION OF TRIBUNAL IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION - WHETHER ELECTION COMMISSIONER IS A COURT - WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE IN INDIA SUPPORTS THE VALIDITY OF THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the rules framed by the Government under S. 112 (2) (i) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, constituting Election Commissioners to hear election disputes under the Act. The main contention of the petitioners was that the rules were ultra vires and void as the rule-making authority was not in fact empowered by the enabling statute to create such a tribunal. Even if it was empowered, it was beyond the competence of the State Legislature to so empower the Government as the creation of a tribunal as the one in question was primarily a legislative function, which was non-delegable in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the rules framed by the Government under S. 112 (2) (i) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, constituting Election Commissioners to hear election disputes under the Act were intra vires and valid. The Court further held that the Election Commissioner constituted under the rules framed under the Madras Village Panchayats Act was not a Court stricto senso but he performed the functions assigned to him as a persona designata. The Court also held that the conferring of power to frame rules relating to the decision of election disputes on the State Government did not amount to excessive delegation or abandonment of legislative power.
Issues: 1. Whether the rules framed by the Government under S. 112 (2) (i) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, constituting Election Commissioners to hear election disputes under the Act were ultra vires and void? 2. Whether the creation of a tribunal as the one in question was primarily a legislative function, which was non-delegable in nature? 3. Whether the Election Commissioner constituted under the rules framed under the Madras Village Panchayats Act was a Court stricto senso? 4. Whether the conferring of power to frame rules relating to the decision of election disputes on the State Government amounted to excessive delegation or abandonment of legislative power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the power to constitute tribunals for the decision of election disputes has been conferred on the Government by the Legislature. The Court further held that the Legislature must have necessarily intended to empower the Government to make rules in that behalf, as the Village Panchayats Act itself makes no provisions for determining the manner of election or decision of disputes relating to the validity or legality of the elections. 2. The Court held that the creation of an authority distinct from a Court is not a legislative function. The Court further held that the legislative practice in India supports the validity of this type of legislation. 3. The Court held that the Election Commissioner constituted under the rules framed under the Madras Village Panchayats Act is not a Court stricto senso but he performs the functions assigned to him as a persona designata. 4. The Court held that the conferring of power to frame rules relating to the decision of election disputes on the State Government does not amount to excessive delegation or abandonment of legislative power.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100 in each writ petition.
2. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners may be stated thus: The Government, purporting to exercise the rule-making power conferred upon them, created a tribunal vesting it with all the powers of a Court to decide election disputes but characterising the said tribunal as persona designata making its decision final. The constitution of the Election Commissioner is unauthorised, unconstitutional, illegal and void as the rule-making authority is not in tact empowered by the enabling statute to create such a tribunal. Even it it is empowered, it is beyond the competence of the State Legislature to so empower the Government as the creation of a tribunal as the one in question is primarily a legislative function, which is non-delegable in nature.
3. On the other hand the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Government, submits that the rules framed by the Government under S. 112 (2) (i) appointing Election Commissioners to hear election disputes under the Madras Village Panchayats Act are intra vires and valid; that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Village Panchayats Act, the Government is empowered to frame rules for the constitution of tribunals to hear election disputes; that the Election Commissioner so appointed is not a Court stricto senso and that the conferring of such powers does not tantamount to an excessive or unconstitutional delegation.
4. In Velayutha Mudaliar v. District Munsiff of Vridhachalam, 1955-1 Mad LJ 201 (A), Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., had to consider the self-same question. The learned Judge has held that the rules framed by the Government under S. 112 (2) (i) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act constituting tribunals for the decision of election disputes are intra vires and valid. Arguments covering a wider range have been addressed on the present occasion, and Mr. T. Lakshmayya has placed before me the result of a laborious and painstaking study made by him and his colleagues of various authorities, Indian and foreign.
5. In 1884, the first Local Boards Act was passed constituting unions for townlets which are intermediary between villages and towns. That Act did not apply to all villages. The first Madras Village Panchayats Act was passed in 1920. In 1930, the Village Panchayats Act of 1920 was repealed and the Madras Local Boards Act was amended bringing within its scope the panchayats constituted under the Village Panchayats Act, thus placing the panchayats on the same footing as the unions. The Madras Local Boards Act of 1930, which brought about these changes, brought within its scope the village panchayat as the unit of local self-government in rural areas. Need, however, had been felt for a separate and comprehensive enactment in respect of village panchayats and this has resulted in the passing of the Madras Village Panchayats Act of 1950 which is intended to make a better provision, in a separate enactment, for the administration of village affairs, by panchayats.
It received the assent of the President on the 5th of July, 1950. This Act is based mainly on the analogous provisions contained in the Madras Local Boards Act and the Madras District Municipalities Act. All the three Acts are intended to serve the same purpose, viz., the creation of statutory self-governing bodies with autonomy in their own spheres and day-to-day administration subject to certain powers of control exercised by the State Government under certain conditions. A village panchayat, which was till then administered as part of the local board, has now been given a distinct entity with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
