LACHMI CHAND SUCHANTI Vs. RAM PRATAP CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from a decision of the second Subordinate Judge of Patna, and the substantial question before us is whether a civil Court has power to set aside the return of a candidate, who is declared elected to the District Board, and to declare that his rival candidate is entitled to be considered as the candidate duly elected. The plaintiff and the defendants were candidates for election to the Patna District Board in the last general election of members from the Electoral Circle No. 20. The poll took place on 29 April 1933. There were three vacancies to be filled and defendants 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected. The plaintiff was a fourth candidate and asserts that had the counting of the votes been properly conducted according to the rules he would have been successful and would have obtained the third place.

(2.) He sued the defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that the return of the defendants should be declared invalid and that he should be declared to have been properly elected. The Subordinate Judge directed a recount of the ballot papers, and as a result found that the plaintiff had obtained the third place. He therefore, declared that the return had been invalid, but granted to the plaintiff a declaration more limited than that sought, namely, mot that the plaintiff had been elected but that the plaintiff had a right to be returned as having been elected. The defendant No. 3, who has been ousted from his former position as the third elected member, has appealed to this Court from this decision. His contention throughout has been that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to set aside his election, to recount the votes or to declare the plaintiff as entitled to the majority of votes.

(3.) The District Boards were constituted by the Bihar and Orissa Local Self- Government Act of 1885, and the rights to vote and to stand as a candidate for election were created by this Act. By Section 138 the Local Government was empowered to make rules consistent with the Act for a number of specified purposes. The material parts of the section are as follows: It shall be lawful for the Local Government to make rules consistent with this Act for any District Board or Local Board or Union Committee for the purpose of; (a) determining the mode and time of appointment or election of members of Boards and Committees, the term of office and the qualifications and disqualifications of such members and the qualifications and disqualifications and the registration of voters and candidates, and generally for regulating all elections under this Act. and to these words were added by the Bengal Self-Government Amendment Act, 1908, the following words: and determining the authority who shall decide disputes relating to such elections. In my opinion the words added by the amendment clearly indicate that it was the intention of the legislature that what is generally known as an election petition Court should be set up for deciding all disputes relating to all elections instituted under the Act, that such Court should be appointed by the Local Government and that the Local Government should frame rules for its procedure and that all disputes of any character should come before and be decided by such Court.