Skip to content


The Surat City Municipality Vs. Chunilal Maneklal Gandhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal Nos. 50 of 1904 and 20 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR209
AppellantThe Surat City Municipality
RespondentChunilal Maneklal Gandhi
Excerpt:
.....of a candidate's name from the candidates' list prepared by the receiving officer- suit for declaration and injunction.;a receiving officer appointed by the collector under the election rules, refused to accept the nomination paper of the plaintiff, a candidate at a by-election for a councillorship of the surat city municipality : and the is of candidates that was published omitted plaintiff's name from it. the plantiff thereupon sued the municipality for a declaration that he was entitled to come forward as a candidate and for an injunction to prevent the municipality from carrying on the by-election without accepting plaintiff as a candidate :;(1) that the suit for declaration failed since the municipality neither denied nor was interested to deny the character or right..........that is concerned with that question, and over him the municipality has no control. therefore the suit for a declaration fails.4. the claim for an injunction too cannot be sustained. the municipality has done no wrong and is threatening to do no wrong ; it only proposes to proceed in accordance with the act and the rules so far as they relate to it. therefore no ground is established for an injunction.5. and as a declaration and an injunction are the only reliefs sought against the municipality, and inasmuch as the ground for each of those reliefs fails, it is clear that the judge of the first court rightly held that the plaintiff's suit disclosed no cause of action. we are, therefore, of opinion that the order of the district judge should be set aside and the decree of the first court.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. The suit admittedly is now to be treated as one only against the Municipality. It seeks a declaration and an injunction.

2. A declaration can only be sought in a suit against any person denying or interested to deny the title of the plaintiff to a particular character or right.

3. But the Municipality neither denies nor is interested to deny the character or right which the plaintiff seeks to establish. It is the Officer mentioned in Rule 13 that is concerned with that question, and over him the Municipality has no control. Therefore the suit for a declaration fails.

4. The claim for an injunction too cannot be sustained. The Municipality has done no wrong and is threatening to do no wrong ; it only proposes to proceed in accordance with the Act and the Rules so far as they relate to it. Therefore no ground is established for an injunction.

5. And as a declaration and an injunction are the only reliefs sought against the Municipality, and inasmuch as the ground for each of those reliefs fails, it is clear that the Judge of the first Court rightly held that the plaintiff's suit disclosed no cause of action. We are, therefore, of opinion that the order of the District Judge should be set aside and the decree of the first Court restored with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //