The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of Section 57, Bengal Municipal Act 1884, to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the purity of public life.

JUDGMENT

Costello, J. - In this case the plaintiffs Satyendra Kumar Das and Sachi Nandan Das are seeking a declaration that they are qualified to be elected under the Bengal Municipal Election Rules of 1927 as commissioners of the Municipal Council of Dacca and that they are not disqualified u/s 57, Bengal Municipal Act, that is to say, Act 3 of 1881:. The facts as alleged by the plaintiffs are these. They say that they were persons of independent means and properties, that they were recorded as independent voters in the register of voters of Ward 1 of the Dacca Municipality, and that neither of them had anything to do with the business of their fathers Rebati Mohan Das (father of plaintiff l) and Hrishi Kesh Das (father of plaintiff 2). The fathers of the plaintiffs owned the joint firm Krishna Mohan Rebati Mohan Das at Faridabad Dacca which was a firm dealing in bricks and other materials of a like kind. The plaintiff's case was that this firm had supplied pugged jhama that is to say, road material to the Dacca Municipality in September 1927 at the special request of defendant 1, Chairman of the Municipality. The plaintiffs contended that the order for these materials had been given because bricks could not then be had in the town of Dacca. They further said that no bricks were supplied after September 1927 and that the bills for the price of bricks were duly passed by defendant 1 as Chairman of the Municipality; but on account of some financial difficulty payment of those bills had not been made in full; but instalments had been made by the Chairman from time to time and ultimately there was a sum of Rs. 2,000 remaining due to the firm of Krishna Mohan Rebati Mohan Das from the Municipality of Dacca. In the light of these facts the plaintiffs contended that the contract between their fathers' firm and the Municipality had come to an end after the goods had been supplied.

2. The term of office of the Commissioners of the Dacca Municipality covering a period of three years (1925 to 1928) having expired the next general election was notified to take place on 19th July 1928; and thereupon the two plaintiffs who were commissioners, that is to say members, of the then existing Municipal Board, offered themselves as candidates for reelection in Ward No. 1, and their respective nomination papers were duly tendered and were submitted to defendant 1 as Chairman on 19th and 20th June 1923 respectively. Upon that defendants 2 and 3 put forward objections to the nomination of the plaintiffs to defendant 1 as Chairman of the Municipality. Defendant 1 dealt with those objections and declared that the nomination papers were in order and were good and valid. Thereupon defendant 2 preferred an objection to the nomination of plaintiff 1, Satyendra Kumar Das before the District Magistrate and defendants 3 and 4 put forward similar objection to the nomination of plaintiffs 2 and 1 on the ground amongst others that the plaintiffs were disqualified for nomination u/s 57, Bengal Municipal Act inasmuch as that they had an interest in the firm above referred to, namely the firm of Krishna Mohan Rebati Mohan Das carried on by the plaintiffs' fathers which firm had dealings with the Municipality during the time the plaintiffs held office as Commissioners of the Municipality. These objections were heard by the District Magistrate under the power conferred upon him by Rule 16, Bengal Municipal Election Rules and the District Magistrate decided the matter in favour of the contention put forward on behalf of the defendants and gave a decision on 30th June 1928. Thereupon the plaintiffs being aggrieved by his order launched this proceeding claiming as I have said, a declaration that they were not disqualified u/s 57, Bengal Municipal Act as the defendants had contended before the District Magistrate. They instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif, 5th Court, Dacca, challenging the order of the District Magistrate as ultra vires and illegal. We do not cons