Jurisdiction of Tribunal to determine rights of parties.

This is an appeal from the Judgment of Ramakrishnan, J., dismissing a petition (W.P. No. 379 of 1961) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant C. Lakshmiah Reddiar for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the proceedings of the Board of Directors of Sriperumbudur Taluk Co-operative Marketing Society, dated 19th March, 1961, in so far as they relate to the rejection of the nomination paper of the appellant in connection with the election of the Directors of the Society. The appellant’s nomination was rejected on the ground that he had not brought to the Society a quantity of 50 maunds of paddy for sale through the Society. The main ground on which the appellant impugned the order of the Board of Directors was that the entire proceedings relating to the scrutiny of nomination papers were vitiated by gross violation of all principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Directors, who had offered themselves for re-election, took part in the disposal of the objection to the nomination of the appellant. The appellant alleged that his nomination was rejected to avoid competition. The Directors had acted as judges in their own cause. The respondent-society opposed the application on two grounds.

(1) That the Directors, who sought the election, did not take part in the rejection of the appellant’s nomination and, even if they did, there was no warrant in the bye-laws that such Directors should not be present at the meeting.

(2) That the Society was a private Society and the proceedings relating to the internal administration of such a society will fall outside the special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge, Ramakrishnan, J., who heard and disposed of the application, dismissed it holding that the Directors had conformed to bye-law 6 in substance in the disposal of the objection and that there was no violation of any principle of natural justice. Hence this appeal.

Certain Regulations (which were referred to by Ramakrishanan, J., as bye-laws) were made by the Society for the conduct of the election of Directors from among the members of the Society. Regulations 5 and 6 are material to the disposal of this appeal. They run thus:

5.-‘The nomination papers shall be scrutinised and disposed of by the Board of Directors and by two other members nominated for the purpose by the Board of Directors on the second day following the last date fixed for the receipt of nomination papers at the meeting convened for the purpose and the list of candidates eligible for election shall be published on the notice board of the Society after scrutiny on the same day. Provided that such of the Directors as stand for re-election shall not take part in the scrutiny.

6.-Any objection to the nomination shall be made in writing before 5 p.m. on the day following the last date fixed for the filing of the nominations and they shall be disposed of by the Board of Directors at its meeting in the presence of the two other members nominated by the Board for the purpose mentioned in rule 5."

Two members appear to have been nominated for the scrutiny of the nomination papers as contemplated by Regulation 5. These two members admittedly did not reject the appellant’s nomination paper on scrutiny. After the scrutiny was over the Board of Directors dealt with the objections to the several nominations including the nomination of the appellant before us. It was not disputed before us that all the Directors present at the meeting, except the ex-officio Directors, were themselves candidates for the election and they had participated in the proceedings which included inter alia the objection to the nomination of the appellant. Prima facie, Regulation 6 does not expressly prohibit such of the Directors as stood for re-election from taking part in the proceedings for consideration of the objections to nominations. The contention of Mr. Kumaramangalam was that though t