Considering of objections on the scope of incriminating tendencies of interrogatories.

This Civil Revision Petition is the second of its kind, arising in the same proceedings, i.e, election petition, O.P. No. 10 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, acting as Election Tribunal. The first of the petitions (C.R.P. No. 1378 of 1959), was filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure ; and since it was understood that such a petition would not lie, that petition has been substituted by the present petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider any point arising out of the earlier petition.

The present petition under consideration is one which seeks to set aside the order of the learned Election Tribunal in I.A. No. 253 of 1959 in the said O.P. No. 10 of 1959. The facts relevant to this petition are that the present petitioner, who is respondent in the said O.P., is the candidate declared elected in a municipal election for Ward VII of Kumbakonam Municipality. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition who was defeated by about 33 votes in the said election, has preferred an election petition to set aside the election of the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that he resorted to various corrupt practices set out in the election petition. In the course of the pendency of the original petition before the Tribunal, the respondent before me took out an application under Order 11, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to discovery and inspection, praying that the Election Tribunal should be pleased to administer certain interrogatories to the respondent in the said original petition. That petition was taken out under Rule 1. It was objected to by the present petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The objection was overruled by the Election Tribunal on the ground that

“the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply in regard to discovery and inspection ; and that Order 11. rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to discovery which includes interrogatories as well. Therefore, the petitioner is well within his limits to administer interrogatories to the respondent to get the relevant answers”.

Against this order, the respondent in the said original petition has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

The learned counsel Mr. K. Raman, appearing on behalf of the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition, took exception to the maintainability of this Civil Revision Petition itself on the ground that Article 227 of the Constitution does not enable the petitioner to come up with such an application against the order of the Election Tribunal. I have heard him in full; and I do not think that his arguments have any force. The question as to whether the application under Article 226 or 227 could be filed, has been given final rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others1. The passage occurring at page 165 of the said decision is in very clear terms, and it states,

“We are also of opinion that the Election Tribunals are subject to the superintendence of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution, and that that superintendence is both judicial and administrative. That was held by this Court in Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another2, where it was observed that in this respect Article 227 went further than section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, under which the superintendence was purely administrative, and that it restores the position under section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. It may also be noted that while in a certiorari under Article 226 the High Court can only annul the decision of the Tribunal it can, under Article 227, do that, and also issue further directions in the matter. We must accordingly hold that the application of the appellant for a writ of certiorari and for other reliefs was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.”

Therefore, there can be no more argument against the maintainability o