NUNNA VEERRAJU Vs. DISTRICT MUNSIF OF RAMACHANDRAPURAM
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-36
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 30,1955

Nunna Veerraju Appellant
VERSUS
District Munsif Of Ramachandrapuram Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JECKER TT AL V. MONTGOMERY [REFERRED TO]
FIELD V. CLARK [REFERRED TO]
KING V. HENDERSON [REFERRED TO]
SHELL COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA,LIMITED V. FEDERAL COMMR. OF TAXATION [REFERRED TO]
UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD [REFERRED TO]
UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN AND E. CO. [REFERRED TO]
MOHIDEEN V. BUKSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
RAJAM AYYAR V. PAVANAMBAL [REFERRED TO]
SASHI BHUSAN HAZRA V. SHEIKH ESHABAR ALI NAZIR [REFERRED TO]
SHRIDHAR ATMARAM V. COLLECTOR OF NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
AZIZ V. KILYOBOY [REFERRED TO]
VELAYUTHA MUDALIAR V. DISTRICT MUNSIFF OF VRIDHACHALAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. NAROTTAMDAS JETHABHAI [REFERRED TO]
K JOGGAYYA VS. KING [REFERRED TO]
HIRJI VIRJI JANGBARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLABHAI LALJI VS. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
BAZLER RAHMAN KHANDAKAR VS. AMIRADDIN AND ON HIS DEATH, HIS SONS APSARADDI [REFERRED TO]
KIRON CHANDRA BOSE VS. KALIDAS CHATTERJI [REFERRED TO]
C.ABBOY REDDIAR VS. COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT AT SAIDAPET [REFERRED TO]
CHINNIAH THEVAR VS. F.M. BADSHA [REFERRED TO]
KISHEN CHAND AND CO VS. NUR MOHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN ALI NANGHIANA S/O MUHAMMAD ALI VS. NUR HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SATYANARAYANA RAJU,J. - (1.)These are applications for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the Election Commissioners constituted under the Rules framed under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, from proceeding to hear and dispose of the election petitions filed before them. All the above petitions raise a common question for decision and can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment.
(2.)The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners may be stated thus: The Government, purporting to exercise the rule-making power conferred upon them, created a tribunal vesting it with all the powers of a Court to decide election disputes but characterising the said tribunal as persona designata making its decision final. The constitution of the Election Commissioner is unauthorised, unconstitutional, illegal and void as the rule-making authority is not in tact empowered by the enabling statute to create such a tribunal. Even it it is empowered, it is beyond the competence of the State Legislature to so empower the Government as the creation of a tribunal as the one in question is primarily a legislative function, which is non-delegable in nature.
(3.)On the other hand the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Government, submits that the rules framed by the Government under Section 112 (2) (i) appointing Election Commissioners to hear election disputes under the Madras Village Panchayats Act are intra vires and valid; that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Village Panchayats Act, the Government is empowered to frame rules for the constitution of tribunals to hear election disputes; that the Election Commissioner so appointed is not a Court stricto senso and that the conferring of such powers does not tantamount to an excessive or unconstitutional delegation.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.