Maintainability of revision petition against order of S.C. Court.

This is a petition to revise the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, setting aside the election of the petitioner from the 25th Division of the City. The disputed election was held on the 30th September, 1948, and it was declared that the petitioner Mrs. Rajam Bharathi was the successful candidate, it having been found that she had polled 726 votes as against 458 secured by her closest competitor Mr. Damodaram Naidu. Mr. Damodaram Naidu thereon filed a petition under rule 12(2) of the rules framed under section 59(2) and section 347(1) of the City Municipal Act to have the election set aside. In paragraph 3(a) of his petition he alleged that on the day of polling a son of the petitioner named Dorai, who was a student in the Pachaiappa’s College, went to the polling booth and claiming to be Sir A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, Vice-Chancellor of the Universjty, asked for a voting paper in his name. Mr. Damodaram Naidu, who was then present at the booth, pointed out that Dorai was not Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar and objected to the voting paper being issued to Dorai. Then Dorai asserted that earlier in the day some one had voted in the name of Mr. V.P. Row, formerly a Judge of this Court and asked why he should not be given a voting paper in the name of Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar. The implication in the statement is obvious. The polling officer again refused to issue the voting paper. When this took place, the petitioner and her husband Mr. Bharathi, who was also her election agent, were both in front of the polling officer; nevertheless they kept quiet. Mr. Damodaram Naidu, therefore complained that Dorai had attempted to falsely personate Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar with the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner.

In paragraphs 3(b) to 3(f) of his petition Mr. Damodaram Naidu alleged that various persons he named therein had with the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner, or her election agents, falsely personated certain others.

The petitioner denied all the allegations made in paragraphs 3(b) to 3(f) of the petition. In respect of the allegations in paragraph 3(a), her explanation was as follows:

“This respondent’s son Dorai who is a student of the Honours Class of the Pachaiappa’s College Madras was not entitled to vote and did not intend to vote but with the idealism of his youth wanted to test the impartiality or vigilance of the Polling Officer and so asked for a ballot-paper stating that he was Rao Bahadur A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar a well-known gentleman who could certainly not be mistaken for the youth. The Polling Officer asked the said Dorai whether he was the Vice-Chancellor A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar when the said Dorai laughed and stated that he merely played a practical joke with the officer in irony to test his vigilance. Thereupon the vote was not exercised. It is not true to state that the said Dorai acted in the manner alleged with the knowledge and the consent of this respondent. As a matter of fact this respondent was looking after the lady voters and was not aware of the incident until her attention was subsequently drawn to it. This respondent denies that Dorai falsely impersonated Mr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar.”

The learned Judge found that the allegations in paragraphs 3(b) to 3(f) of Mr. Damodaram Naidu’s petition had not been substantiated. He, however, found at the same time that Dorai had attempted to personate Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar and that his mother must have been privy to his action and that she must have abetted and connived at it. In that view he allowed the petition, set aside the election of Mrs. Rajam Bharathi and directed that a fresh election be held. The petitioner now seeks to have that order set aside.

On behalf of Mr. Damodara Naidu the preliminary objection was taken that a revision petition does not lie. This objection is based on rule 12(3) of the rules framed under section 347(1) and 59(1) of the Madras City Municipal Act for the adjudica