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

1930 Supreme(Cal) 365

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Suhrawardy, J., Costello, J.
Rathis Chandra Munshi & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Amulya Charan Ghatak - Respondent
Decided On : 25-02-1930

The court established that the provisions of Rule 15 (1) of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 were imperative and non-compliance affected the validity of the election.

Headnote:

Municipal Election - Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 - Rule 15 (1), Rule 16

Fact of the Case:

The appeal arises from a suit related to a Municipal election at Ranaghat. The plaintiff contested the election and challenged the victory of defendants 1 and 2, alleging that defendant 1's nomination paper was not submitted within the required 28 days before the election date.

Finding of the Court:

The District Judge held that the election of defendants was void due to the non-compliance with Rule 15 (1) and ordered it to be set aside.

Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of Rule 15 (1) of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 regarding the submission of nomination papers and the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to declare an election invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that Rule 15 (1) was imperative and not merely directory, and non-compliance affected the validity of the election. It also held that the civil Courts had jurisdiction to declare an election held under the Municipal Act invalid.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the election of defendants 1 and 2 was declared void. A fresh election was ordered if necessary.

JUDGMENT

Suhrawardy, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit relating to a Municipal election at Ranaghat within the district of Nadia. The facts are that at the Municipal election held on 17th December 1927 defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants before us, were declared elected. "The plaintiff who was a rival candidate along with another person named Abani Kanto Bose was defeated. Under B. 15 (1) of the rules framed by the Government of Bengal in 1927 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sections 15 and 69, Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, every person who is a candidate for election shall send his name to the Chairman in writing not less than 28 days before the date fixed for election. In the present case the date fixed for the election was 17th December 1927. The nomination paper submitted by defendant 1 was at 11 a. m. on 19th November 1927. The plaintiff applied to the District Magistrate under Rule 16 to omit the name of defendant 1 from the list of candidates inasmuch as the nomination paper filed by him was not submitted within time. The District Magistrate however held that it was submitted in time and ordered the election to be held with the result that the appellants were elected. The plaintiff thereafter brought the present suit in the civil Court for a declaration that the election of defendants 1 and 2 was void and liable to be set aside. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif, but on appeal the learned District Judge of Nadia held that the election of defendants was void and ordered it to be set aside. Defendants 1 and 2 have appealed. The basis of the judgment of the learned District Judge is that the nomination paper filed by defendant 1 was not submitted within 28 days as provided by Rule 15 (1) and that the provision of that rule is imperative. Defendant 1 therefore was not a duly qualified candidate and his election was illegal.

2. The learned District Judge is also of opinion that as the election could not be partially set aside, the election of both the defendants must be set aside. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the provision of Rule 15 (1) is not imperative but is merely directory, and is of such a nature that any irregularity in respect thereof may be waived by the officer concerned in holding the election. In this case the Chairman who presided at the election accepted the nomination paper of defendant 1 and the District Magistrate who seems to be the final controlling authority adopted the view of the Chairman. We are however unable to agree with the view taken by the Chairman and the District Magistrate with regard to the irregularity of procedure complained of in this case. The words used in Rule 15 (1) are quite clear and are capable of one meaning only, namely that the person who is a candidate for election shall send his name to the Chairman in writing not less than 28 days before the date fixed for the election; in other words there must be 28 clear days between the submission of the nomination paper and the day on which the election is to be held. According to this calculation the nomination paper ought to have been submitted before midnight of the 18th November. There can be no doubt that there has been an infringement of this rule : see Rawlenshi Municipal Corporations Acts, Edn. 10, para. 230, p. 155.

3. The next question is whether the rule is merely a rule of procedure or it is so substantial as to affect the validity of the election. Rule 15 appears under the heading " Qualification of Candidates. " Rule 14 says that any person qualified to vote and not disqualified under the Act shall be qualified to be elected a commissioner. Rule 15, as I have already said, lays down that every person who is a candidate shall send his name to the Chairman not less than 28 days before the date fixed for the election. These are the two qualifications mentioned of a person who may validly be a can-date at a Municipal election. Want of any of these two qualifications disqualifies the cand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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