AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mockett, J.—The facts in this case are not relevant to the point which we have to decide. The following only is relevant. The Election
Officer of Kistna passed an order to which one Mr. Rama Yogi took objection. Mr. Rama Yogi filed an appeal in Form VI in accordance with
Rule 12 of the rules for the preparation of Electoral Rolls. That rule says:
Any person feeling aggrieved by any order passed under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 by the Ejection Officer may prefer an appeal against such order
to the election authority or to such person or persons as he may empower for hearing and disposing of such appeals.
The rule then goes on to prescribe that the appeal shall be in Form VI and shall be addressed to the appellate authority through an Election
Officer and presented to the latter within five days of the passing of the order appealed against. Under Sub-rule (2) the Election Officer shall
forward every such appeal to the appellate authority together with a statement of the material facts of the case, the relevant papers and his own
remarks on the grounds of appeal. The order of the appellate authority on such appeal shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any
legal proceeding.
It would seem on a reading of that rule that what is contemplated is that the appeal to the appellate authority shall be considered by him on the
written material forwarded through the Election Officer by the appellant. But under Rule 14 a right is given to the appellant to appear and be heard
either in person or by an agent duly authorised in writing. It seems to me that it is for the person appealing to intimate his intention of appearing in
person or through an agent because although there is provision under Rule 13 for notice to be sent by the Election Officer to the persons
concerned, under Rule 11(a) there is no provision for the appellate authority to give notice to anybody. There is nothing to prevent an appellant
intimating his desire to be heard under Rule 14 in his appeal notice in Form VI. I specially wish to guard myself against any suggestion that ample
opportunity should not however be given to any person to appear by which I mean that if the appellate authority disposes of the matter in such time
that it was impossible for the person aggrieved to intimate to him his intention of appearing, then I think that in such a case this Court might possibly
think fit to interfere. But in this case what happened was this. The appeal was filed on the 1st October, 1936. It was disposed of on the 2nd
November. Between the 1st October and the 2nd November, Mr. Rama Yogi appears to have done nothing. He did not intimate that he desired
to be heard personally or by an agent; he does not appear even to have written to the appellate authority and so on the facts before him, that is, the
documents forwarded by the Election Officer, the Inspector disposed of the appeal dismissing it. There is therefore before us no question of
jurisdiction.
There appears to be no matter here contrary to the well-known rules governing writs of certiorari because it does not appear on these facts that
the appellate authority, the Inspector has acted in any way in conflict with the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the rules.
There is one other aspect of this case which may be referred to. Mr. Tampoe in an affidavit which has been placed before us states that full
instructions were given to two persons whom he understood to be representing the objector regarding the rolls of the villages of Jagayyapet with
which we are not now concerned and Muppala with which we are. According to Mr. Tampoe he told these two gentlemen that they must
represent everything that was necessary before him in writing and in the case of one of them we are told that he was at one time an Advocate of
this High Court. This is mentioned because it does appear that even on the merits in fact there has been any denial of a hearing to the petitioner.
Speaking for myself I think he was abreast of everything, that was going on and he has only invoked these proceedings because he has failed.
I might add that in order to avoid a repetition of petitions of this sort it would be advisable for the Inspector to issue some sort of a notice and I
would suggest perhaps the office of the Election Officer might be convenient spot giving some simple instructions to people proposing to file
appeals or at least to put up a notice in his own office.
For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs Rs. 100.
Lakshmana Rao, J.
I agree.