SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Cal) 158

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
PROMODE LAL MOITRA - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, 24 PARGANAS - Respondent
Civil Revn.  628  Of  1956
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 1956

Advocates Appeared:
Arun Kumar Dutt, BINAYAK NATH BANERJEE, C.N.LAIK, Debi Prasad Pal, MAYER BALAI LAL PAL, MURARI M.DUTT, N.C.CHAKRAVARTI, Nanda Lal Pal, PABITRA BANERJI, R.B.PAL, S.K.ROY CHAUDHARY, S.M.BOSE, SAMARENDRA N.BANERJI, SANKAR BANNERJI

Where an alternative remedy is provided by a statute for challenging an election, the High Court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:

ELECTION - Nomination and registration of candidates - Scrutiny of nomination papers - Appeal against inclusion of a candidate's name in the list of candidates - Magistrate's decision - Finality - Remedy available to aggrieved party - Interference by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a resident of Baranagore, filed his nomination paper for the general election of the Baranagore Municipality. The respondent, Amar Mazumdar, also filed his nomination paper for the same ward. The Chairman of the Municipality, as the Returning Officer, published a list of candidates after scrutiny of the nomination papers, including the petitioner's name. Amar Mazumdar filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, challenging the inclusion of the petitioner's name on the ground that he was disqualified under Section 22 (1) (f) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The Magistrate, relying on an ex parte report from the Chairman, allowed the appeal and directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the list of candidates.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Magistrate's decision was vitiated by procedural irregularities and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Magistrate had relied on an ex parte report from the Chairman without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond or cross-examine the Chairman. The Magistrate's decision was also erroneous on the merits, as the petitioner had no direct or indirect interest in the contract between the Municipality and his brothers' partnership firm.

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate's decision in the appeal was final and binding on the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner had an adequate remedy under the Bengal Municipal Act by way of an application under Section 36 to set aside the election. 3. Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate's decision in the appeal was final only for the purposes of the election and not for all purposes. It did not preclude the petitioner from seeking relief under Section 36 of the Act to set aside the election. 2. The petitioner had an adequate remedy under Section 36 of the Act to challenge the validity of his disqualification and seek the setting aside of the election. The High Court would not interfere under Article 226 where an alternative remedy was available. 3. The High Court's power to interfere under Article 226 was not barred by the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act. However, the High Court would exercise its discretion to decline interference where the petitioner had failed to pursue the alternative remedy and had allowed it to become time-barred.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Article 226, holding that he had not followed the right procedure and had an adequate remedy under Section 36 of the Bengal Municipal Act.

SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Baranagore, which is within the Jurisdiction of the Baranagore Municipality. For the purposes of the General election of the said municipality, fixed on 11-3-56, the final electoral Roll of the said Baranagore municipality was published under the Election Rules made under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and the petitioner's name appears as a male voter in Ward No. 3. The Respondent No. 3, Amar Mazumdar is also a recorded voter in the same Ward. For the purposes of the said election, both the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 filed their respective nomination papers with the Respondent No. 2, who is the Chairman of the Municipality. The nomination and registration of candidates standing in an election held under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, are governed by a set of rules framed by the Government of Bengal, under powers conferred by Section 44 of the said Act. Rule 17 lays down that not less than 45 days before the election day the Commissioners shall fix for the nomination of candidates, a date which shall not be less than 35 days before the election day. On or before the date of nomination, every candidate for election is to file his nomination paper in the prescribed form and in accordance with the prescribed formalities, with the Chairman. The Chairman then publishes a notice fixing the time and date of the scrutiny of the nomination paper, and on the date so fixed, scrutinises the nomination papers in the presence of the candidate or agent and must register those whose nomination papers are found valid. The Chairman then allocates the symbols, and his decision in this respect is final. The Chairman then prepares and publishes the list of candidates so registered. Under Rule 20, If any person who has filed a nomination paper disputes the right of any other candidate to be on such list then under Sub-rule (1), he may appeal to the Magistrate in writing within three days of the publication of such a list. The Magistrate shall make such order as to the Insertion of the name as "appears to him to be just". The list is accordingly amended by the Chairman, and the amended list is thereupon published. Under Sub- rule (3), "the order of the Magistrate shall be final".

( 2 ) IN the present case, the Chairman held the scrutiny of nomination papers on the 10th February, 1956. The results were published on the 11th February and the petitioner's name was registered in the list of nominations so published. On or about the 14th February, 1956, the respondent No. 3, Amar Mazumdar preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1, the Additional District Magistrate, 23-Parganas, against the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the list, on the ground that he was disqualified, under Section 22 (1) (f) of the said Act. The Chairman was made respondent No. 2, in the said appeal which was numbered as Appeal Case No. 23 of 1956. The relevant provision of Section 22 is set out below:"22 (1) A person shall not be eligible for election or appointment as a Commissioner if such person-- (f) has, directly or indirectly, by himself or by his partner or employer or any employee, any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of, the Commissioners".

( 3 ) IN order to understand the decision in the appeal, it will be necessary to relate a few facts. The Petitioner's father, Matilall Maitra since deceased, carried on a business in Petrol and Motor accessories under the name and style of Messrs. Radha Motor Works, at 86/1 Barrackpore Trunk Road, Alambazar. Upon his death, the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. served a notice stopping supplies of Petrol. Matilal left him surviving four song, viz. , the Petitioner Promode and his three brothers Kumudlall, Subodhlall and Sujanlall. On or about the 14th of April, 1950, the three brothers of the Petitioner entered into an agreement of Partnership, constituting the partnership firm of Messrs. Radha Motor






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top