AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesam, J.—This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Salem setting aside the election of the petitioner before me
for the first ward of the Union of Tri-chengode in the Salem District. The facts of the case are as follows:-The Madras Government dissolved the
Trichengode Union u/s 45 of the Local Boards Act and passed an order that another Board should be re-constituted. They appointed an officer
immediately to exercise the powers of the Board and he was., directed to reconstitute a Union Board by arranging for elections in respect of such
members as have got to be elected and they directed also the Taluk Board of Sankari to nominate the members that have got to be nominated
after the elections are over. All this is to be done as soon as possible. Accordingly the Special Officer appointed proceeded with making
arrangements for the election of members for the first ward among other elections. In this election the petitioners before me were elected. The
respondent before me filed the petition O.P. No. 27 of 1929 for the purpose of setting aside the election on the ground that the electoral roll on the
basis of which the election was conducted was the roll prepared for the year 1923-24 and no other later roll was prepared. It is said that the old
electoral roll contains names of persons who are dead and of persons who are unfit to be voters and. does not contain persons who are fit to be
voters. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that that does not matter. u/s 51(4) an electoral roll published in any year shall remain in force
till the publication of a fresh electoral roll. The District Judge disallowed this contention of the petitioners before me holding that Section 51(4)
applies only to cases happening in the interval between April and July of any year. The rules prescribed that a tentative list will be published on the
30th April of each year and after hearing objections, if any, the final list should be published on the 1st July. The District Judge thinks that only in
the case of elections between the 30th of April and the 1st of July Clause 4 of Section 51 operates and that in all other cases where the rules are
broken the election is bad because it is based on an electoral roll not prepared according to the rules under the Act. But if this were the object of
the section, Clause 4 of Section 51 would not have been worded in. the very wide language in which it is framed. The learned Advocate-General
who appears for the respondent and supports the order of the District Judge does not in fact contend for the very narrow construction of the
learned District Judge. He contends that the object is to provide for delays in the preparation of electoral rolls when one is being prepared to carry
out the obvious intentions of the; Act, and it does not apply to a case where the directions of the Act are openly disregarded and no efforts are
made to prepare electoral rolls for a period of S or 6 years. There, is something to be said in favour of such a construction. At any rate it is
reasonable. But where the section is worded in such a way that it gives no scope to make such distinctions, its obvious effect must be carried out.
It may be that the legislature never contemplated such flagrant disobedience of the directions of the Act as it has happened in Trichengode. We do
not know why they did not contemplate such disobedience. Either the legislative might have thought that some higher authority would have set it
right or such instances would not happen. In the present case, I am informed that the Trichengode Union was not dissolved for its failure to carry
out the provisions of the Act in this matter but really for some other delinquency, so that, but for the delinquency in some other directions, the
Union Board would have gone on disregarding the provisions of the Act for many years without anybody finding fault with it. But we are not
concerned with all these things. The Act says that the electoral roll published in any year, shall remain in force till the publication of a fresh electoral
roll. If it is intended that such a provision should apply only during the course of the year, there is nothing to prevent the legislature from saying so,
that is ""shall remain in force till the termination of that year"". The learned Advocate-General suggested that there may be some delay in the
preparation of the roll for the next year. If it is intended that the provision should operate until the termination of the next year, then there is nothing
to prevent the legislature from saying so, that is from saying ""shall remain in force till the termination of the next following year"". Once we begin to
make distinctions of this kind, we do not know where the line is to be drawn. Until the legislature makes its intention plainer, my plain duty is to
give effect to the clause of the Act. Moreover, having regard to Section 45(1) of the Government notification, the policy of the legislature is that no
time should be lost in the reconstitution of another Union Board. If one is to wait for a proper electoral roll and then only to proceed with the
election of the members of the Board, the Board will not be constituted immediately. Rules relating to the electoral roll say that a tentative list
should be published on the 30th of April and the final list on the 1st of July. In the present case the Special Officer was appointed in November,
1928. He has to wait till July, 1929. Then thare are nominations to be made. The constitution of the Board would be delayed much longer than is
contemplated by the term ''immediately'' in Section 45 or in the G. O Apparently the policy of the Act is that the old electoral roll should continue
in order to avoid delays of several kinds, namely, accidental delay for a few months or for a year, delay due to deliberate disobedience to the
superior authorities, or gross incompetency on the part of the Union Board, etc. That is the intention of the legislature and there is no use of
complaining against it. To proceed upon an antiquated electoral roll is really to deprive several voters of their votes. This may be so or may not be
so; it is my duty to give effect to the section. The learned Advocate-General relied on a decision in K. R. M. Singaram Chettiar v. K. Srinivasa
Aiyangar ILR (1926) M. 726 : 53 M.L.J. 545.. That'' case refers to election of members to a Temple Committee constituted under the Hindu
Religious Endowments Act. That Act directs a register to be kept. It appears from the facts of that case that for 8 years no register has been
revised and my brothers Kumaraswami Sastriar and Curgenven, JJ., held that the election was not proper. But in that Act there is no section like
Section 51(4) of the Local Boards Act. The conclusion in that case can only apply to cases where there is no section. This is clear from the
judgment of Curgenven, J., at page 731, where he says:
Unless there is some provision to the contrary, the validity of the election depends upon the regularity of the procedure according to which it is
held....
Here we have got an express provision that one kind of irregularity however gross will not render an election invalid, namely, the want of a fresh
electoral roll. For these reasons, I do not see any reason to limit the operation of Section 51(4) of the Local Boards Act. I set aside the order of
the District Judge holding that the election of the petitioners is perfectly valid and dismiss the 1st respondent''s petition in the Court below with
costs of the petitioners both here and in the Court below. I also set aside the order of the District Judge directing the holding of a fresh election,
after the preparation of a new electoral roll.