AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Reilly, J.—The petition before the Subordinate Judge of Calicut relates to the election of the two respondents before him as members of the
Calicut Taluk Board for the Payyoli Firka of the Kurumbranad Taluk. The Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction over the Kurumbranad Taluk.
The election was attacked by the petitioner before the Subordinate Judge on the ground that votes given for him at the election were wrongly
rejected by the President of Taluk Board as invalid and that the President refused to recount the votes when requested to do so. These acts
according to the petitioner''s allegations took place at Payyoli. Respondent 1 before the Subordinate Judge, whose election was attacked, is the
petitioner here, and he urges that the Subordinate Judge of Calicut had no jurisdiction to hear an election petition regarding these acts alleged to
have taken place at Payyoli outside his local jurisdiction. Under Rule 1 of the Rules for the Conduct of Inquiries and the Decision of Disputes
relating to Elections Rule 1.--Save as provided in Section 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, no election held under the Madras Local
Boards Act, whether of a member or president of a district board, a taluk board or a union board, or a vice-president of a district board or taluk
board, shall be called in question except by an election petition presented, in accordance with these rules, to the district or subordinate judge
having jurisdiction by any candidate or elector against the candidate (hereinafter called the returned candidate) who has been declared by the
president of a-loeal board to have been duly elected election petitions must be presented to the District or Subordinate Judge ""having jurisdiction"".
Mr. Pocker for the petitioner before the Subordinate Judge urges that ""election"" in such cases includes nomination, as decided in J. Selvaranga
Raju Vs. T. Doraiaswami Mudaliar, and that the nomination of the candidates in this case was admittedly in Calicut, that the allegations of his client
are really against the President of the Taluk Board, whose office is, in Calicut, and that under the rules notice of such petition must be served on the
President of the Board. For these reasons he contends that the Subordinate Judge of Calicut had jurisdiction in this matter, though the votes were
rejected and the recount refused and both the respondents before the Subordinate Judge resided outside his jurisdiction. Rule 1 does not say that
the petition"" can be presented to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction over the election or over any place where any act included in
the term ""election"" is done, but merely to the District or Subordinate Judge ""having jurisdiction"". In my opinion, though the matter is not very clear,
that means having jurisdiction over the place of the acts or omissions complained of. In this case, therefore, the Subordinate Judge of Calicut had
no jurisdiction to hear the petition in question. His order is, set aside, and the petition before him is dismissed.