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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Reilly
Koppula Subbiah
Versus
Thammana Manikyam And Anr.
Decided On : 22 August, 1927

The court upheld the District Judge's interpretation of election rules and found no defect in his jurisdiction or procedure

Headnote:

Interpretation of Rules - Election Petition - Improper Rejection of Ballot Papers

Fact of the Case:

K. Subbiah declared elected as Municipal Councillor, but election petition filed by T. Manikyam due to improper rejection of 16 ballot-papers

Finding of the Court:

District Judge found that the election result was materially affected by the improper rejection of ballot-papers, ordered a new election

Issues: Interpretation of election rules, jurisdiction of the District Judge, legality of the procedure

Ratio Decidendi: District Judge's interpretation of election rules and finding on the improper rejection of ballot-papers were within jurisdiction, no defect in the procedure

Final Decision: Petition dismissed, new election ordered, petitioner to pay respondent 1's costs

JUDGMENT

Reilly, J.

1. K. Subbiah, the petitioner here, was declared to be elected as a Municipal Councillor of Ellore as having got 196 votes at the election against 195 for T. Manikyam, respondent 1. On an election petition presented by T. Manikyam the District Judge found that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper rejection of 16 ballot-papers, which, if accepted, would have left each of these candidates with 205 votes. Whether the District Judges finding that the 16 ballot] papers were improperly rejected was right or wrong, he arrived at that finding by interpreting Rules 14, 15 and 17 of the rules for the conduct of Elections of Municipal Councillors. I find no defect in his jurisdiction to interpret those rules as he has done, nor any illegality nor material irregularity in his procedure. On his findings his order that a new election should be held was within his jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner will pay respondent 1s costs in this Court. Respondent 2 will bear his own costs in this Court.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top