The judgment established the distinction between the Chief Judge's role as persona designata and as representing the Court, and highlighted the need for amending the Madras Act to clarify the Commissioner's authority in conducting inquiries into candidates' qualifications at the nomination stage.

Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition brought by Rao Bahadur Lakshmanan Chettiar against an order made by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court in the following circumstances. On the 17th August 1926, the petitioner was nominated as a candidate for election as a divisional Councilor for the 29th Division of the City. It is not in dispute that the nomination paper was regular on the face of it but it was said that the petitioner was disqualified for these reasons. For some time past he had been an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of the city. On the 11th of August he tendered his resignation having in mind no doubt Section 52 (1) (b) (iv) of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919 which disqualifies a Presidency Magistrate which has been held to include an Honorary Magistrate for election as a Councilor. That resignation reached Government on the 14th of August, and Government passed a G. O. in the following terms:

The Governor-in-Council withdraws the powers of Honorary Presidency Magistrate for the City of Madras conferred on the under mentioned gentleman (i.e., the petitioner) who has resigned his appointment.

2. On the 20th of August an objection was put forward by the respondents alleging that the withdrawal by the candidate from his appointment as Presidency Magistrate only took effect by virtue of the G. O. withdrawing his powers which was subsequent to his nomination and that, therefore, the nomination was bad. The objection was heard by the Commissioner acting under Rule 4 hereinafter to be referred to of the Rules made under the Act and a petition was put in for revision before the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes under the same rule. Both officers pronounced the nomination to be invalid and struck his name off the list of nominations in accordance with Rule 3. Against that decision of the Chief Judge this revision petition is brought.

3. Two main points have been argued before us: the first, which goes to the root of the whole matter, being that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any such petition, on the ground that the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court is not a Court subject to the machinery of the Code of Civil Procedure but a persona designata whose decison is not only not appealable but cannot be called up in revision. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court: Parthasarathy Naidu v. Koteswara Rao A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 561 that the fact that his decision is not appealable so far from being a ground for holding that revision will not lie points decisively in the opposite direction. The appellants contention as to the character in which the Chief Judge decided this matter depends partly upon a consideration of the relevant sections of the Municipal Act and the rules made there under, partly on the effect of certain authorities which were cited to us. Section 59 (2) (b) of the Act procides that the Governor-in-Council may make rules which may provide for the adjudication by the Court of Small Causes of disputes...... arising out of elections.

4. In our opinion "elections" within the meaning of that section means completed elections which have resulted in the creation of a councillor, and does not cover disputes arising before such election; but though Rule 4 with which we are primarily concerned purports to be made under Section 59 we are of opinion that it is rendered valid by a generality of the powers conferred on the Governor-in-Council by Section 347 of the Act, and that the rule is not vitiated by its description as having been made under a section which is not applicable. Rule 4 gives power to a registered voter to make an objection to the list of candidates. Thereupon the Commissioner is to give his deeision on the objection in writing which decision shall be final unless......a petition for revision is put in before the Chief Judge.

and in such a case it is argued that the Chief Judge acting under Rule 4, is in effect the Court of Small Causes functioning through