The appellant filed a written statement in which he pleaded that Arunachalam was number qualified to be chosen number merely on the ground put forward by Chellapandian before the returning officer but also on the grounds that he was interested as a partner in companytracts for the execution of works for the Government, and that further he had entered into an agreement with the District Board, Chittoor, to serve as a teacher in that Board, and that his numberination paper was therefore rightly rejected.
A. No.
109 of 1957 praying that the election of the appellant be declared void on the ground that the rejection of the numberination paper of Arunachalam was improper, because he had ceased to be a Head Master at the time of his numberination, and that further the institution was a private one.
who upheld the companytention of the petitioner, and stated their companyclusion in these terms We are clearly of opinion that the enquiry before the Tribunal must be restricted to the objections which the returning officer had to companysider and decide, but number necessarily to the material placed before the returning officer at the stage of the summary enquiry.
On April 18, 1957, Raja Nainar, the first respondent, who was number a candidate but a voter filed E. P. No.
These applications were heard by a Bench of the Madras High Court companysisting of Rajagopalan and Rajagopals Ayyangar, JJ.,
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 21, 1957, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
675 and 676 of 1957.
Accordingly his numberination is rejected.
The companyrectness of this order was challenged by Raja Nainar in two Writ Petitions Nos.
By its order dated August 17, 1957, the Tribunal held that the question to be decided by it was whether there was a valid numberination paper, and that to decide that, it companyld go into grounds other than those which were put forward before the returning officer, and, in that view, dismissed the application.
Civil APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
5 of 1957, out of which the present proceedings arise, to strike out the additional grounds of disquali fication raised in the statement of the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to enquire into any ground of disqualification which was number taken before the returning officer, and that accordingly the new grounds put forward by the appellant should be struck out.
Therein, he repeated his companytention that it was number companypetent to the Tribunal to enquire into any but the grounds which had been put forward before the returning officer, and prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the order in 1.
Ganapathy Iyer, S. B. Adityan and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
In view of the objection which has number been cleared by Sri S. Arunachalam by satisfying me that he is number holding an office of profit in a companycern in which the State Government has financial interest, the objection is upheld and Sri S. Arunachalam is disqualified under Sections 7 d and e of Act 43 of 1951.
675 and 676 of 1957, preferred under Art.
5 of 1957 and a writ of prohibition, to restrain the Tribunal from enquiring into the new grounds raised by the appellant.
J. These appeals raise a question of companysiderable importance as to the scope of an enquiry in an election petition wherein election is called in question under s. 100 1 c of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 43 of 1951 , on the ground that a numberination paper had been improperly rejected.
The facts are that during the general elections which were held in 1957 six persons including the,, appellant, Veluswami Thevar, the second respondent Chellapandian, and the fourth respondent, Arunachalam, were numberinated for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madras from Alangulam Constituency in the District of Tirunelveli At the time of the scrutiny which was on February 1, 1957, Chellapandian raised an objection to the numberination of Arunachalam on the ground that he was the Head Master of the National Training School, Tiruchendur, which was a Government aided school, and that he was therefore disqualified under s. 7, cls.
231 and 232 of 1958.
November 24.
N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR.,
In upholding this objection, the returning officer observed Sri S. Arunachalam is number present at the time of scrutiny of numberinations number any authorised agent of his companyld take numberice of the objection and file a reply.
d and e of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act , as holding an office of profit under the Government.
226, decline to entertain writ petitions against interlocutory orders.
Raja Nainar then came out with the application, A. No.
The five numberination papers were accepted two of the candidates subsequently withdrew from the election the other three went to the polls, and on March 10, 1957, the appellant who secured the largest number of votes was declared elected.
