The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of certiorari may be issued unless expressly taken away by statutes or bye-laws, and that the nature of the acts performed by the municipal council and the presiding officer determines the applicability of the writ.

Ramesam, J.

1. This is an application by Sri Rajah Malraju Venkatanarasimha Rao Bahadur Garu of Narasaraopet for a writ of certiorari to be issued to the three respondents who are : (1) the Chairman of the Narasaraopet Municipal Council elected at a meeting op 5th November 1929, (2) the Municipal Council and (3) the Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council who presided at the meeting of 5th November for electing the Chairman and for setting aside the alleged resolution of a mooting on that day declaring respondent 1 to have been duly elected as Chairman. The petitioner is the other candidate for election.

2. An application was made to the Government, by the petitioner for setting aside the election on the ground of various irregularities in the election; but the Government while finding that the action of the Councilors in violating the provisions of Rule 4 of the rules for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Councils prescribing secret voting was highly irregular did not interfere with the election in question and passed an order leaving the aggrieved parties to the legal remedies. Immediately after the said order of the Government (on 10th December 1929) the present petition was filed. We issued an interim writ. The Municipal Council of Narasaraopet appear by counsel and oppose the application.

3. The first point that would suggest itself is the question whether the writ of certiorari ought to be issued when there is another remedy open. Under the election rules an election petition lies; but unless the statutes or bye-laws made under the statutes take away the remedy by certiorari the writ may be issued. Where it is laid down in the statutes or bye-laws made under the statutes that proceedings under them shall not be removed by the writ of certiorari then certiorari is said to be taken away by such statutes : that is, it is taken away by express negative words and not[ merely by words which direct that certain matters shall be finally deter-mined : vide Halsbury, Vol. 10, Section 34.5. But even in cases where certiorari is taken away a writ may be issued if the authority acted without jurisdiction : vide Halsbury, Section 318. This was the;, procedure adopted in Ex parte Brad-laugh [1878] 3 Q.B.D. 509: see also Nando Lal Bose v. Corporation for the Town of Calcutta [1885] 11 Cal. 275. It ought to be done under exceptional circumstances only.

4. The next question is whether in this matter the resolution which is sought to be set aside is an act of a judicial authority. The writ lies for the purpose of quashing the determinations of bodies who are entrusted with judicial functions out of the ordinary course of legal procedure: vide Halsbury, Section 320. Even-in respect of such bodies the writ lies only in judicial as distinguished from ministerial acts. In Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Justices [1926] A.C. 586, Lori Atkinson quoted the dictum of May, C. Z. in Reg v. Dublin Corporation [1878] 2 L.R. Ir. 371 as follows:

In this connexion the term "judicial" does not necessarily mean acts of a Judge or legal tribunal sitting for the determination of matters of law, but for the purpose of this question a judicial act seems to be an act done by competent authority, upon a consideration of facts and circumstances, and imposing liability or affecting the rights of others. And if there is a body empowered by law to inquire into facts, make estimates to impose a rate on a district, it would seem to me that the acts of such a body involving such consequence) would be judicial acts.

5. In the present case, we find that the proceedings of the council dated 5th November 1929 do not contain even a resolution of the council. They recorded the facts relating to the election and the declaration of the returning officer (the Vice-Chairman) declaring the votes obtained by each candidate and who got the majority of the vote. I am unable to see in this the act of any tribunal judicial or quasi-judicial. There was no