Pandrang Row, J - (1.)This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari in respect of the order of the Election Commissioner, viz., the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris dated 10 August 1934 which dismissed the petitioner's application to declare the election of respondent 2 Mr. J.A. Davis as Chairman of the Ootacamund Municipal Council void under the rules framed by the Government for deciding disputes regarding the validity of elections. There can be no doubt that the Election Commissioner, viz., the Subordinate Judge, had jurisdiction to deal with the petition presented to him by the petitioner; in fact he was the only authority who had jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding the validity of the election in question. The petitioner himself invoked that jurisdiction, and it does not lie in his mouth to deny that the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question. It is however contended that ho acted in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction because he decided the dispute in a particular way giving particular reasons which according to the petitioner are not valid reasons. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows. A meeting of the Municipal Council at Ootacamund was convened by the Vice-Chairman on 30 June 1934, at 3-30 p.m. for the purpose of electing a Chairman. Before the meeting proceeded to its business two councillors presented a written application to the Vice Chairman who was then presiding in the following terms. We beg to bring to your notice that the notice for to-day's meeting has not been served on two councillor viz., Mr. Doraiswami Naidu and Mr. Siddiah Gowder. Any resolution passed at this meeting will therefore be out of order and we request that the meeting may therefore be dissolved.
(2.)Though it would appear that what was alleged to be a point of order was raised the Vice Chairman allowed discussion to go on regarding the point, and about 15 minutes later, when the petitioner came to the place where the meeting was going on, he drew the attention of the Vice Chairman to the fact that no discussion should be allowed but that he should give a ruling on the point of order. Nevertheless the discussion proceeded and finally the Vice Chairman passed the following order, Ex. 1. Mr. Kuppanna Rao moves a motion for adjourning (sic) the meeting for want of proper notice on two councillors namely, Messrs. Siddiah and Doraiswamy Naidu; seconded by Mr. Mc Leish. I heard Mr. Davis, Mr. Nathan, Mr. Munisamy Pillai and Bamamurti and Kao Sahib Chennu Pillai. I find on record that no proper notice was served on the two councillors. I therefore adjourn the meeting.
(3.)After the meeting was so adjourned some members of the council including the Vice Chairman and the petitioner left the meeting hall. The others who continued to remain at the place continued the meeting and declared respondent to have been elected as Chairman, there being no other candidate nominated. The Election Commissioner found that there was no proper or valid service of notice on the two councillors in question. As regards the Vice Chairman's adjournment of the meeting the Sub-Judge at first observed that a point of order had been raised, but later on, he expressed the opinion that there was no valid point of order raised before the Vice Chairman and that the Vice Chairman in giving a ruling upon it without any evidence to support it acted without jurisdiction and that the adjournment of the meeting by him was therefore improper and invalid. He found accordingly that the subsequent meeting and the election of respondent 2 as Chairman at that meeting were valid and dismissed the petition before him. There can be no doubt that this Court cannot interfere by issuing a Writ of Certiorari with the order of an Election Commissioner unless that order was passed without jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction. It has been held in Asan Maracair V/s. Bijili Sahib 1934 Mad. 269, that the High Court can interfere only if there was a want of jurisdiction at the commencement of the proceedings before the Election Commissioner and that once there was jurisdiction, any error whether of law or fact committed subsequently cannot take away the jurisdiction once obtained.