1916 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election procedure.
2. Applicability of Rule 6 from the 1888 rules.
3. Validity of the election due to lack of notice to Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib.
4. Requirement of a quorum for the electoral body.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Election Procedure:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of the validity of his election to the committee of the Abbas Ashoor Khana or Thousand Lights Charities in Madras. The election was conducted according to a scheme framed by the court in O.S. No. 392 of 1878, which stipulated that vacancies should be filled by an electoral body comprising the remaining committee members and the three muttawallis. The plaintiff claimed he was validly elected at a meeting held on 7th June 1914.

2. Applicability of Rule 6 from the 1888 Rules:
The defendants argued that the election procedure contravened Rule 6 of the rules framed by the committee and muttawallis in 1888 (Exhibit IV). The court found that Rule 6 was intended to govern the proceedings at meetings of the managing committee and did not apply to elections conducted by the committee and muttawallis conjointly. The court also noted that there was no evidence that this procedure was ever followed at elections, rendering the objection baseless.

3. Validity of the Election Due to Lack of Notice to Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib:
The defendants contended that the election was void due to the failure to give notice of the meeting to Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib, who was allegedly a muttawalli at the time. The court found that Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib was appointed as a muttawalli in 1906 when he was only eleven years old, making his appointment void. Consequently, he did not possess the status of muttawalli at the time of the plaintiff's election, and the failure to notify him did not invalidate the election.

4. Requirement of a Quorum for the Electoral Body:
A significant issue was whether the election was invalid because it was not conducted by a majority of the electoral body. On 7th June 1914, only three out of six members of the electoral body were present at the meeting. The court noted that the decree in O.S. No. 392 of 1878 did not provide for a quorum or a minimum number of votes for a valid election. However, the general rule of English Law, applicable to select and definite bodies, requires that any act by way of resolution at a meeting is valid only when a majority of the body is present. The court found no evidence of a valid rule or a course of business that fixed a quorum at less than a majority. Therefore, the resolution passed at the meeting attended by less than a majority of the electoral body was deemed invalid.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the election of the plaintiff was invalid due to the lack of a quorum, as the meeting was attended by less than a majority of the electoral body. The decree of the City Civil Judge was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with each side bearing its own costs.