Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, NIYOGI
NARENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONERS OF BALLY MUNICIPALITY - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 216 Of 1960
Decided On : FEBRUARY 12, 1960
MUNICIPAL ELECTION - Rejection of nomination paper - Disqualification under Section 22 (1) (g) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 - Liability for rates of holding - Section 140 (2) of the Act - Whether the petitioner is liable for the rates of the holding in circumstances - Whether the petitioner can be held disqualified under Section 22 (1) (g) of the Act for non-payment of rates of the said holding - Maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Scope and object of Article 227 of the Constitution - Whether the impugned appellate order is liable to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution - Whether the petitioner is entitled to succeed on merits and on the technical aspect.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's nomination paper was rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that he was disqualified to stand as a candidate for the aforesaid Municipal Election under Section 22 (1) (g) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, he having been in arrears of rates for the requisite period of three months, as mentioned in the said section, in respect of holding No. 8 S. C. Chatterjee Street, Ward No. III of the said Bally Municipality. The petitioner appealed to the District Magistrate under Rule 20 (1) of the Election Rules, but the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Magistrate. The petitioner then filed the present Rule challenging the rejection of his nomination paper and the dismissal of his appeal.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitioner is not liable for the rates of the disputed holding No. 8, S. C. Chatterjee Street, Ward No. III of the Bally Municipality, in view of Section 140 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, which provides that the total amount of the rate or rates shall be payable by the owner of the house who shall thereafter be entitled to deduct from the rent which he pays for the land such proportion of the rate or rates, so paid by him, as is equal to the proportion which such rent bears to the annual value of the holding. 2. The petitioner cannot be held disqualified under Section 22 (1) (g) of the Act for non-payment of rates of the said holding, as he is not liable for the same. 3. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable in a case like the present, where the petitioner's nomination paper has been improperly rejected and he has been deprived of his right to contest the election. 4. The scope and object of Article 227 of the Constitution is to keep the subordinate courts (tribunals) within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. 5. The impugned appellate order is liable to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the learned Additional District Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and which he was bound to exercise under and in terms of the statute in question. 6. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on merits and on the technical aspect.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is liable for the rates of the disputed holding in circumstances, which have been detailed above, in view of Section 140 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, that is, liable in the sense of incurring the liability, or coming within the description, of being in arrears in payment of rates and, if he is not so liable under the law, whether he can be held disqualified under Section 22 (1) (g) Of the. Act for or on account of non-payment of rates of the said holding. 2. Whether, under Section 140 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, the lessees alone in the present case or the lessors also along with them would be liable for the rates of the aforesaid holding. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to succeed on merits and on the technical aspect.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 140 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, provides that the total amount of the rate or rates shall be payable by the owner of the house who shall thereafter be entitled to deduct from the rent which he pays for the land such proportion of the rate or rates, so paid by him, as is equal to the proportion which such rent bears to the annual value of the holding. This provision clearly indicates that the liability for the rates of a holding, comprising house and land, belonging to two different owners but treated as a single holding by the Municipality and assessed to rates accordingly, is on the owner of the house as distinguished from the owner of the land subject only to the former's right of contribution against the latter and the latter's corresponding liability to the former. 2. The petitioner, as a co-owner of the land and as one of the lessors, is not liable for the rates of the disputed holding, namely, holding No. 8. S. C. Chatterjee Street, Ward No. III, Bally Municipality, and he cannot, accordingly, be held or deemed to be or to have been in arrears in payment of the said rates. 3. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on merits and on the technical aspect, as the rejection of his nomination paper was improper and illegal and the impugned appellate order is liable to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute, the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate was set aside, and he was directed to order acceptance of the petitioner's nomination paper as valid for purposes of the ensuing Municipal election of Ward No. III of the Bally Municipality.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was taken out by the petitioner in connection with the ensuing Municipal election of the Bally Municipality, or to be more specific, of Ward No. III of that Municipality.
( 2 ) THE election is being held under the Bengal Municipal Act, hereinafter referred to also, in some places, as, simply, the Act. The petitioner who has been registered as Voter No. 1012 of the said Bally Municipality, Ward No. III, in the finally published Electoral Roll, filed his nomination paper duly with the Chairman of the Municipality as required by law (Vide Rule 17 (1) of the Election Rules, made under Section 44 of the Bengal Municipal Act, hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules ). The date of the general election of the Municipality was fixed by an appropriate notification under Rule 2 (Vide Sub-rules (1) and (2)) of the above Election Rules and it is due to be held on February 14, 1960. On December 28, 1959, the last date for the filing of nomination papers was fixed (vide Rule 17 (1)) as January 7, 1960. The petitioner's nomination paper was duly filed within the said fixed date. On January 14, 1960, which was the date of scrutiny (Vide Rule 17 (3)), the petitioner's nomination paper, at the scrutiny, held under Rule 17 (4) (a), was rejected by the opposite party No. 2 (who had been appointed by the local Government, under Rule 46 of the Election Rules, to "perform all the duties, assigned to the Chairman and the Commissioners at a meeting", for the conduct of the above Election and who will be referred to hereinafter as the Election Officer) upon the ground that he (the petitioner) was disqualified to stand as a candidate for the aforesaid Municipal Election under Section 22 (1) (g) of the Bengal Municipal Act, he having been in arrears of rates for the requisite period of three months, as mentioned in the said section, in respect of holding No. 8 S. C. Chatterjee Street, Ward No. III of the said Bally Municipality.
( 3 ) ON January 16, 1960, the list of candidates was published by the Election Officer, acting as the Chairman for the purpose, under Rule 17 (5) of the Election Rules, that is, as required under the statute (the Bengal Municipal Act), read with the relevant Rule or Rules. In this list, the petitioner's name was not included, presumably because or on account of his (petitioner's) nomination paper having been rejected as aforesaid.
( 4 ) ON January 18, 1960, the petitioner appealed to the District Magistrate in writing under Rule 20 (1) of the Election Rules and, on January 20, 1960, the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Magistrate who eventually heard and dealt with the same. Against this appellate order, the present Rule was obtained by the petitioner on January 27, 1960, on the ground, inter alia, that the rejection of his nomination paper, as aforesaid, was improper, illegal and invalid and that his appeal before the District Magistrate had not been properly heard according to law or properly disposed of. The petitioner alleges that, by reason of the above dismissal of his appeal and rejection of his nomination paper, as aforesaid, he has been put to serious and irreparable loss and injury inasmuch as, if the said decision and order stood, he would not be able to contest the ensuing election in question.
( 5 ) THE Rule has been opposed on behalf of the Municipality and also on behalf of the Election Officer, who are the opposite parties before us, and both the said opposite parties have supported the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal, as aforesaid, and the rejection of his nomination paper, as having been made on valid grounds. Strictly speaking, the instant Rule is concerned only with the above appellate order of the learned Additional District Magistrate and, if that order be good on the merits or is otherwise immune from challenge in this Rule or not liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution, the present Rule must fail and
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
