SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1933 Supreme(Mad) 344

CURGENVEN
Thirumala Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Chellam Pillai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Curgenven, J.

1. This is an application for a Writ of Certiorari to vacate the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram as Election Commissioner in O.P. No. 72 of 1932 on his file. The order declared the election of the Petitioner void and directed a re-election.

2. We have heard some argument as to whether a Writ of Certiorari lies against the order of an Election Commissioner. Mr. T. M. Krishnaswami Aiyar has scarcely contested that on all ordinary principles such a Writ would lie, the test of course being whether the officer against whose proceeding it is directed was acting in a judicial capacity. A construction of that phrase which we think we may adopt here has been given by Scrutton, L.J. in Rex v. The London County Council (1931) 2 K.B. 215, where he says:

It is enough if the tribunal in question is exercising, after hearing evidence, judicial functions in the sense that it has to decide on evidence between a proposal and an opposition.

3. In the present case it is clear that the tribunal was exercising functions of a judicial character and indeed by Rule 6 of the Local Board Rules for the decision of disputes it is provided that every election petition shall be enq



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top