1955 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Petitioner's nomination due to arrears of taxes.
2. Whether the Petitioner is an uncertified bankrupt and the validity of his nomination.
3. Allegation of false personation of voters Nos. 406 and 995.
4. Whether voter No. 410 was dead and if the vote was cast for the Petitioner.
5. Whether the election of the Petitioner is liable to be set aside.
6. Whether the 1st Respondent is entitled to the declaration prayed for.
7. Relief to be granted.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Petitioner's Nomination Due to Arrears of Taxes:
The Election Commissioner found that the Petitioner and K. Sambasivrao were partners in two firms that were in arrears of profession tax and property tax to the Municipality at the time of nomination. Notices for payment of arrears were served on K. Sambasivrao, and the arrears were unpaid by the nomination date. The Commissioner concluded that the Petitioner was disqualified under Section 49(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that a firm is not a separate legal entity but a group of persons, and arrears due from the firm are effectively due from the partners.

2. Whether the Petitioner is an Uncertified Bankrupt:
The Commissioner ruled against the Petitioner on this point, finding that the Petitioner was an uncertified bankrupt, which disqualified him from standing for election. This point was not contested further in the High Court judgment.

3. Allegation of False Personation of Voters Nos. 406 and 995:
The Commissioner found against the Petitioner on this point, concluding that false personation occurred and implicated the Petitioner and his agents. This finding was not challenged in the High Court.

4. Whether Voter No. 410 Was Dead and If the Vote Was Cast for the Petitioner:
The Commissioner determined that voter No. 410 was indeed dead and that the vote was cast for the Petitioner. This point was not contested further in the High Court.

5. Whether the Election of the Petitioner Is Liable to Be Set Aside:
Given the findings on points 1, 2, and 3, the Commissioner set aside the election of the Petitioner. The High Court upheld this decision, affirming that the Petitioner was disqualified due to arrears of taxes and the other disqualifying factors.

6. Whether the 1st Respondent Is Entitled to the Declaration Prayed For:
The Commissioner declared the 1st Respondent duly elected as Municipal Counselor for Ward No. 23, as there were no other valid candidates after the disqualification of the Petitioner. The High Court, however, found this to be an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner did not consider whether the voters cast their votes with knowledge of the Petitioner's disqualification, which is crucial for declaring another candidate duly elected.

7. Relief to Be Granted:
The High Court sustained the Commissioner's order setting aside the election of the Petitioner but set aside the part of the order declaring the 1st Respondent duly elected. The Court ordered a new election for the seat. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the disqualification of the Petitioner due to arrears of taxes and other disqualifying factors but found an error in declaring the 1st Respondent duly elected without considering whether the voters knowingly threw away their votes. Consequently, the Court ordered a new election for the seat.