Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SHIVAPPA
M.S.D. Thenraja
Versus
Executive Officer, Cantonment, St. Thomes Mount, Chennai & Another
Writ Petition Nos.155 of 1997, 197 and 255 of 1997 and W.M.P. Nos. 237, 238, 283, 371, 1484 and 1485 of 1997
Decided On : 30-01-1997
CANTONMENT BOARD ELECTION - REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPERS - CHALLENGE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ELECTION DISPUTE - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ELECTION PETITION - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ART.226 - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the rejection of their nomination papers for the Cantonment Board election scheduled for 2. 1997. The petitioners alleged that the rejection was arbitrary, actuated by mala fides, on extraneous consideration, and without resorting to an election dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rejection of nomination papers is a matter to be agitated by way of an election petition under Rule 42 of the Rules framed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The court further held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of an election petition and could not maintain the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners can challenge the rejection of their nomination papers by way of a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of an election petition? 3. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the election process at an intermediate stage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rejection of nomination papers is a matter to be agitated by way of an election petition under Rule 42 of the Rules framed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. 2. The court further held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of an election petition and could not maintain the writ petition. 3. The court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the election process at an intermediate stage only in cases of jurisdictional errors, violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice, and perversity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions and miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
1. The petitioners have challenged the rejection of their nomination papers to the election scheduled for Cantonment Board on 2. 1997. The grievance being common, the contesting respondents have filed common counters and hence all these petitions were heard together and decided by this common order.
2. Few dates and certain important facts are summarised hereunder.
3. The date of election to Cantonment Board was proclaimed on 112. 1996 and the schedule for election was also given. The last date for inclusion of names in Electoral Roll was fixed on 20.12.1996. On the same day effected publication of list of claims with notice inviting objections to such applications. The last date for receipt of objections to claim applications was fixed on 212. 1996. Disposal of the claims and objections by the President was fixed on 24 and 25th December, 1996 between 9 A.M. and 5 P.M. The presentation of nomination papers for the election to the Returning Officer was fixed on 212. 1996 between 10 A.M. and 4. P.M. Place for the scrutiny of nomination paper was fixed at 5 P.M. nomination paper has to be scrutinized by the Returning Officer on 30.12.1996 between 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. Withdrawals of the candidates was fixed on 312. 1996 between 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. The names of the withdrawn candidates has to be announced on 312. 1996. The allotment of symbols has to be announced on 1. 1997 at 11 A.M. The list of contesting candidates has to be published on 1. 1997 at 4 P.M. The election to be held on 2. 1997 from 7.30 A.M. to 4.30 P.M. Counting of votes and declaration of results was fixed on 2. 1997. In this process major portion of the election process is over and the election alone is to be held on 2. 1997 from 7.30 A.M. to 4.30 P.M.
4. In pursuance of the proclamation as scheduled, petitioner in W.P. No. 155 of 1997 filed his nomination paper for the election of Ward No. 2, St. Thomas Mount Cantonment Board. Petitioner in W.P. No. 197 of 1997 also filed his nomination paper on 212. 1996 for Ward No. 5. Petitioner in W.P. No. 255 of 1997 filed his nomination to Ward No. 1.
5. The elections to the Cantonment Board is regulated under the Cantonments Act, 1924 and the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945, hereinafter referred to, in short, as "the Act" and "the Rules", wherein for purpose of holding elections, there are separate provisions made for inclusion of divisions into wards, determination of number of members, preparation, revision and final publication of electoral rolls, nomination papers, time and manner of holding elections, authority by which and the manner in which disputes relating to elections shall be decided is regulated under the Act and the Rules.
6. At the time of scrutiny of the application of the petitioner in W.P. No. 155 of 1997 one Mr.Denzil Sequra objected stating that the petitioner has not paid necessary pr of essional tax. The petitioner contended that he had shown all the receipts for payment of the said pr of essional tax and absolutely there is no arrears to be paid by him and the objection regarding payment of pr of essional tax by the petitioner for the company Thennammal Finance Limited for 1995-96 has nothing to do with the right to contest the election and also alleged that he showed certain receipts for the payment of pr of essional tax for the company also and it is also stated that at the instance of Mr. Denzil Sequra the police foisted a false case under various sections of the Penal Code and he was arrested on 312. 1996 at 1.00 A.M. and let out on bail on 312. 1996 around 2.30 P.M. Meanwhile, the Returning Officer has affixed the list of contesting candidates for Ward No. 2 excluding the name of the petitioner. When enquired, the Returning Officer orally stated that he was in arrears of pr of essional tax for Thennammal Finance Private Limited for the period 1995-96. The case of the petitioner is that the Returning of ficer has acted arbitrarily without following the election schedule itself
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
