Judgement

T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYER, J. : These appeals raise a question of considerable importance as to the scope of an enquiry in an election petition wherein election is called in question under S. 100(1)(c), Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), on the ground that a nomination paper had been improperly rejected.

2. The facts are that during the general elections which were held in 1957 six persons including the appellant, Valuswami Thevar, respondent 2, Chellapandian, and respondent 4, Arunachalam, were nominated for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madras from Alangulam Constituency in the District of Tirunelveli. At the time of the scrutiny which was on 1st February 1957, Chellapandian raised an objection to the nomination of Arunachalam on the ground that he was the Head Master of the National Training School, Tiruchendur, which was a Government-aided school, and that he was therefore disqualified under S. 7, cls. (d) and (e), Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as holding an office of profit under the Government. In upholding this objection, the returning officer observed :

"Sri S. Arunachalam is not present at the time at scrutiny of nominations nor any authorised agent at his could take notice at the objection and file a reply. In view of the objection which has not been cleared by Sri S. Arunachalam by satisfying me that he is not holding an office of profit in a concern in which the State Government has financial interest, the objection is upheld and Sri S. Arunachalam is disqualified under Ss. 7 (d) and (e) of Act 43 of 1951. Accordingly his nomination is rejected."

3. The five nomination papers were accepted; two of the candidates subsequently withdrew from the election; the other three went to the polls, and on 10th March 1957, the appellant who scarred the largest number of votes was declared elected.

4. On 18th April 1957, Raja Nainar, respondent 1, who was not a candidate but a voter filed E. P. No. 109 of 1957 praying that the election of the appellant be declared void on the ground that the rejection of the nomination paper of Arunachalam was improper, because he had ceased to be a Head Master at the time of his nomination, and that further the institution was a private one. The appellant filed a written statement in which he pleaded that Arunachalam was not qualified to be chosen not merely on the ground put forward by Chellapandian before the returning officer but also on the grounds that he was interested as a partner in contracts for the execution of works for the Government, and that further he had entered into an agreement with the District Board, Chittoor, to serve as a teacher in that Board, and that his nomination paper was therefore rightly rejected. Raja Nainar then came out with the application, I. A. No. 5 of 1957, out of which the present proceedings arise, to strike out the additional grounds of disqualification raised in the statement of the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into any ground of disqualification which was not taken before the returning officer, and that accordingly the new grounds put forward by the appellant should be struck out.

5. By its order dated 17th August 1957 the Tribunal held that the question to be decided by it was whether there was a valid nomination paper, and that to decide that it could go into grounds other than those which were put forward before the returning officer, and, in that view, dismissed the application. The correctness of this order was challenged by Raja Nainar in two Writ Petitions Nos. 675 and 676 of 1957, preferred under Art. 226. Therein, he repeated his contention that it was not competent to the Tribunal to enquire into any but the grounds which had been put forward before the returning officer, and prayed that a Writ of Certiorari be issued to quash the order in I. A. No. 5 of 1957 and a Writ of Prohibition, to restrain the Tribunal