Filing of election petition to set aside election.

Six candidates including Velusami Thevar, the 1st respondent, Chellapandian, the second respondent, Ambalavana Pillai, the third respondent, and Arunachalam, the fourth respondent, filed their nomination papers for election from the Alangulam Constituency for the Madras State Legislative Assembly. After the scrutiny of the nominations on 1st February, 1957, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of Arunachalam, the fourth respondent, on an objection preferred by Chellapandian, the second respondent. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were the candidates that eventually contested the election. The polling was held on 8th March, 1957. Velusami Thevar, the first respondent, was declared elected.

The objection preferred on 1st February, 1957 by the second respondent to the Returning Officer ran:

“Arunachala Nadar has filed nomination for Alangulam Constituency for Assembly (1). He is employed as Headmaster, National Training School, Tiruchendur, which is run with Government’s grants-in-aid and as such he holds office of profit in a concern, where the State Government has financial interest. Therefore his nomination is objected to as invalid under section 7 (d) and (e) of Act XLIII of 1951”.

The order of the Returning Officer, which itself pointed out that the decision had to be given ex parte Arunachalam, was:

“Sri S. Chellapandian raises objection to the nomination as a candidate for Alangulam Assembly Constituency on the ground that he is employed as Headmaster in the National Training School, Tiruchendur, which is run with Government grants-in-aid and as such he holds office of profit in a concern where the State Government has financial interest and as such his nomination is invalid under section 7 (d) and (e) of Act XLIII of 1951. Sri S. Arunachalam is not present at the time of scrutiny of nominations nor any authorised agent of his could take notice of the objection and file a reply. In view of the objection which has not been cleared by Sri S. Arunachalam by satisfying me that he is not holding an office of profit in a concern, in which the State Government has financial interst, the objection is upheld and Sri A. Arunachalam is disqualified under section 7 (d) and (e) of Act XLIII of 1951. Accordingly his nomination is rejected”.

In the written statement that he filed in answer to the election petition, the returned candidate Veluchami Thevar pleaded that Arunachalam was disqualified on several other grounds as well which it may not be necessary to enumerate at this stage. The petitioner preferred I.A. No. 5 of 1957 in effect to confine the enquiry before the Tribunal to the correctness or otherwise of the objections preferred by the second respondent before the Returning Officer. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed I.A. No. 5 of 1957 on 17th August, 1957. The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to set aside the order of the Tribunal and also for the issue of a writ of prohibition.

The main question for determination in these proceedings before us is what is the scope of the enquiry before the Tribunal, when, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it has to decide whether or not the Returning Officer improperly rejected the nomination of a candidate.

With reference to the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nominations the relevant portion of section 36 (2) (a) of the Act runs:

"The Returning Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination, and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds:-

(a) that the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the following provisions