1. This is an application that the production of printed judgments may be excused in order that a second appeal may be admitted out of its turn with the further purpose that an injunction may then be obtained preventing a District Board election from being held on 3rd September 1932, in which election the appellant, whose nomination has been rejected, wishes to be a candidate. The appellant after the rejection of his nomination filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court and obtained a declaration that he had been validly nominated for election and an injunction restraining the Election Officer from holding the election without the appellant as a candidate. On appeal the District Judge dismissed the suit, and the second appeal is against that dismissal.
2. I do not think it proper that I should help the appellant by making any special order in his favour. If this second appeal is eventually admitted, it may be considerable time before it is heard, and at any rate it could not be heard until after the day fixed for polling. The appellant, anxious to pursue his own remedies, as he is quite entitled to do, wants to get an injunction staying the election, regardless of the fact that he would be putting the other candidates and the electors to great inconvenience and that, if for any reason his appeal was not heard with extraordinary promptness, the injunction would in effect temporarily disfranchise the constituency. The appellant perhaps exaggerates his importance to the public. At any rate it is on his own right to be a candidate that he insists. But his right will be vindicated if he succeeds in his appeal and gets the declaration for which he has prayed; and if in due course he takes proper steps to object to the election of any other candidate, he will have another chance of being elected for the constituency without throwing the electoral machinery out of gear at this very late date and temporarily disfranchising the constituency. I have been referred to Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapat AIR 1923 Mad 475, as an instance where an injunction was made stopping an election. That is an interesting case, but of less value as a precedent than it would otherwise be, because it is a very extreme case-so extreme indeed that Schwabe, C.J., in spite of the fact that a suit was pending before a District Munsif, felt justified in expressing an opinion that the suit could only have one result. And he cited, it may be remarked, two English cases, not election cases of this kind, Aslatt v. Southampton Corporation (1881) 16 Ch D 143 and Richardson v. Methley School Board (1893) 3 Ch 510, in which the learned Judges felt equally sure of their ground, though in those cases they did not have to go to the extremely unusual length of prejudging a suit pending in another Court. This is a very different case, and it certainly cannot be said that the result of the second appeal, if it is admitted, is a foregone conclusion.
3. In my opinion, though a candidate for election to a Local Board like anyone else has a right to pursue his legal remedies, whatever they may be, save in exceptional circumstances it is an abuse for a candidate, who for some reason is shut out, to make his pursuit of his remedies in the civil Courts, a weapon for dislocating the electoral machinery and stopping an election. This is an abuse which appears to be on the increase in this presidency and is in my opinion very much against the public interest, and I am not prepared to assist the appellant in any attempt to apply it in this case. The petition is dismissed.