TMI Blog1907 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court may be pleased to declare that there was no general election, his case as finally developed has been, not that there was no general election, but that no Councillor was elected at the general election. 4. The facts on which the plaintiff relies are set foith in his plaint, but stated in its simplest form his case is, that defendant No. 2, the Municipal Commissioner, having once fixed the Justices' election to take place on the 13th of February, subsequently changed it to the 14th; that as the number of valid nomination exceeded that of the vacancies, an election had to be made from among the persons nominated (Section 26(2)(j); and that the poll was not taken till the 21st of February. 5. On these facts the plaintiff conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a vote, or for any other cause, any person enrolled in the Municipal election roll may at any time, within eight days after the result of the election has been declared, apply to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. (2) If the said Chief Judge', after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, finds that the election was a valid election and that the person whose election is objected to is not disqualified, he shall confirm the declared result of the election. If he finds that the election was not a valid election he shall set it aside, so far as concerns the person whose election is objected to. If he finds that there is no objection to the validity of the election-proceidings, but that the person whose election is objected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination. Neither argument is conclusive and in my opinion it matters little which view prevails. I will assume (without deciding) that the plaintiff's contention is correct and that election here means the election of an individual candidate. Starting from this, the plaintiff argues that the Chief Judge has no jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case, because the objection is to the election as a whole. 12. But in this there is an obvious fallacy: if the applicant can question before the Chief Judge the election of any candidate, he can question the election of every candidate. 13. Further he can do this on the ground that the election as a whole was invalid, for the section, after specifying two permissible grounds of ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have been elected. 17. Even if it be assumed that the poll was taken on the wrong day still it was treated as a part of the election so that there was a de facto contested election (Section 26(2)(j)). It is the validity of this defaulte contested election that is really questioned. 18. But under Section 33 the Chief Judge has jurisdiction to determine the validity of a contested election and so he is the Tribunal appointed by the Act for that purpose. 19. But where a special Tribunal, out of the ordinary course, is appointed by an Act to determine questions as to rights which are the creation of that Act, then, except so far as otherwise expressly provided or necessarily implied, that Tribunals jurisdiction to determine those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 24. Though I come to this conclusion without regard to the inconveniences that the opposite view would involve, I may point out that, while it is provided that an application to the Chief Judge must be within fifteen days after the result of the election has been declared (with the purpose no doubt that all questions should be raised and, if possible, determined, before the day for retirement), there would be no such limitation to the time within which a suit might be brought; and a deplorable uncertainty might thus be created as to the Corporation's constitution and proceedings. 25. Then again, if the High Court has the jurisdiction suggested by the plaintiff, there might be a conflict be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
