Skip to content


T.B. Kesava Reddiar Vs. Tahsildar of Polur and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad319
AppellantT.B. Kesava Reddiar
RespondentTahsildar of Polur and anr.
Cases ReferredVenkataratnam v. Secy. of State
Excerpt:
- - another equally good reason is that the petitioner has refrained from making the government a party to the petition......a writ of mandamus, but is quite inappropriate in a writ of certiorari. this court has no power to issue a writ of mandamus. (section 50, specific relief act). the petition must therefore be dismissed. moreover, the relief sought is only nominally against the election officer; it is in reality against the government who by their order in g.o. no. 3810 l and m mis., dated 24th september 1932, cancelled the order of the election officer. polur, accepting the nomination papers of the petitioner, and further directed under rule 35(1) of the rules for the election of members of local boards, that the petitioner's name be excluded from the list of valid nominations and ballot papers. this court has power under section 45, specific relief act, to issue mandatory orders to public servants and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Burn, J.

1. The prayer is that this Court:

should be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to the Election Officer... and to direct the said officer to include my name in the list of nominated candidates and then to proceed to hold the election....

2. This is obviously a prayer for a direction which would be suitable in a writ of mandamus, but is quite inappropriate in a writ of certiorari. This Court has no power to issue a writ of mandamus. (Section 50, Specific Relief Act). The petition must therefore be dismissed. Moreover, the relief sought is only nominally against the Election Officer; it is in reality against the Government who by their Order in G.O. No. 3810 L and M Mis., dated 24th September 1932, cancelled the order of the Election Officer. Polur, accepting the nomination papers of the petitioner, and further directed under Rule 35(1) of the Rules for the election of members of Local Boards, that the petitioner's name be excluded from the list of valid nominations and ballot papers. This Court has power under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, to issue mandatory orders to public servants and others to do specific acts within the local limits of its ordinary civil jurisdiction, but not against the Governor in Council Section 45, Proviso (f), Specific Relief Act nor against the Governor acting with ministers: Venkataratnam v. Secy. of State AIR 1930 Mad 896. That in my opinion is a sufficient reason for me to decline to discuss the question whether the order of the Government was intra or ultra vires. Another equally good reason is that the petitioner has refrained from making the Government a party to the petition. I dismiss the petition with the costs separately of the Election Officer and respondent 2.


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