Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Original Appeal No. 28 of 1918

Advocates

Mr. N.N Sircar and Mr. J.C Bose, for the respondent, were not called upon.

Judges

Sunderson, C.J
Woodroffe, J.

Acts

section 45 of the Specific Relief Act
Rule 2 of the Election Rules
Municipal Corporation Act
Municipal Act of 1899.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was brought by Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter against the judgment of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri. The dispute arose from Mr. Mitter's candidature for the forthcoming Municipal Election in Calcutta (Ward No. 6). Mr. Mitter submitted a letter and three nomination forms (attached together) to the Chairman of the Corporation. An objection was taken that these documents did not constitute a valid nomination. The Chairman upheld Mr. Mitter's nomination, but a Rule was obtained under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and, on hearing that Rule, Mr. Justice Chaudhuri made it absolute, thereby overruling the Chairman's decision. The present opinion is the appellate decision by Sanderson, C.J., with a concurring opinion by Woodroffe, J.

The relevant regulatory framework cited in the opinion is Rule 2 of the election rules made under the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899, which prescribes required contents of a nomination-paper, including the candidate's name, description, place of abode, the name of the ward, proposer and seconder signatures and eighteen approvers.

Attorneys recorded in the opinion: N.C. Bose for the appellant; Kar, Mehta & Co. for the respondent.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the candidate's submission (a letter plus three attached nomination forms) constituted a valid, self-contained nomination-paper under Rule 2 of the Calcutta election rules, in particular whether the description of the candidate was present.
Whether the same individual may validly sign a nomination-paper both as seconder and as one of the eighteen approvers required by Rule 2(d).
Whether a signature that is the name of a firm (rather than an individual) can serve as the signature of an approver.
Whether multiple forms attached together (pinned or gummed) may be read together to make a valid nomination when some of the attached forms do not themselves contain the candidate's name, proposer, and seconder.
Whether a reference on the nomination-paper to the candidate's entry in the Election Roll (noting voter number and ward) constitutes the "description" required by Rule 2(a).
Whether affidavits offered on appeal (relating to alleged impropriety in obtaining approver signatures) should be admitted where they were available but not used before the learned Judge below.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that the attached letter (signed by the candidate and stating his description) and the three nomination forms should be taken together as one nomination-paper, so that the description requirement was satisfied.
The appellant sought admission of affidavits on appeal which, it was alleged, would bear on whether some signatures on one of the forms were intended for another candidate; these affidavits had not been used before the learned Judge below because the appellant's then-counsel decided not to call them.

Respondent / Advocate-General's Arguments

The learned Advocate-General admitted that the entry identified as "No. 15" was the name of a firm and could not be supported as the signature of an individual approver.
At one point the learned Advocate-General urged that the reference on the paper to the candidate being "recorded as Voter No. 1553 of Ward No. 6" constituted a sufficient description within the meaning of Rule 2(a); the Court considered and rejected this contention.
The respondent objected to the admission of the additional affidavits on appeal; the Court declined to admit them.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the dispute against the text and purpose of Rule 2 (election rules under the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899). The analysis proceeded in several discrete steps, drawn from the reasoning of Sanderson, C.J., and the concurring observations of Woodroffe, J.:

Requirement of a self-contained nomination-paper: The Court emphasized that a nomination-paper must be "self-contained and complete." Sanderson, C.J. held that the forms used in this case did not themselves contain the candidate's description and that the attached letter could not properly be read as making the form complete. Woodroffe, J. agreed that a single paper must be complete in itself.
Description of the candidate: The Court rejected the contention that the words "Who is recorded as Voter No. 1553 of Ward No. 6" (a cross-reference to the Election Roll) satisfied the "description" requirement of Rule 2(a). The judges held that such a reference, by itself, was not a description within the meaning of the rule.
Proposer/seconder vs approvers: The Court read Rule 2 to require that the proposer and seconder must be distinct from the approvers. Sanderson, C.J. concluded that if a person signs as proposer or seconder they cannot validly also sign as one of the eighteen approvers; Woodroffe, J. explicitly affirmed that the 18 approvers are "clearly 18 voters other than those mentioned in clause (c)."
Signature by a firm is invalid as individual approver: The Court accepted the learned Advocate-General's admission that a signature identified as the name of a firm (No. 15 on the first form) could not be treated as the signature of an individual voter and therefore did not qualify as an approver's signature.
Multiple attached forms and the risk of abuse: The Court considered whether the three attached sheets could be read together. It concluded that mere pinning or gumming together does not make incomplete sheets part of a single valid nomination if the individual sheets are not themselves complete or otherwise properly connected. The judges observed that allowing incomplete or unattached sheets to be read together would open the procedure to possible abuse (e.g., signatures obtained under false pretences), and therefore declined to treat the second and third forms as part of the nomination when they lacked the candidate's name and the proposer and seconder.
Affidavits and procedural fairness on appeal: The appellant sought to move affidavits on appeal alleging some approvers intended to support another candidate. The Court declined to admit those affidavits because they had not been used before the learned Judge below and the appellant's counsel at that trial had chosen not to call them. The Court therefore did not decide the substantive contention about whether some signatures were obtained for another candidate.
Conclusion drawn from the facts: On the facts, even excluding the disputed signatures and recognizing the proposer/seconder duplication, the first paper had only 16 valid approvers (after excluding the firm and the duplicate). This was insufficient under Rule 2(d), and the second and third papers could not be brought into account because they were not complete and not properly connected on their face with the first paper.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

APPEAL DISMISSED with costs; the Rule (obtained under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act) is discharged with costs. The opinion concludes that Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter's nomination was invalid.

Immediate legal effects on the parties:

The decision upholds the ground that the nomination as submitted was invalid and that the Chairman's earlier decision in favour of the nomination cannot stand in the face of the Rule.
The appellant's application to admit additional affidavits on appeal was refused and the Court expressed no view on the unproven allegation that some approver signatures were intended for another candidate.

Broader implications (as stated by the Court):

The opinion articulates that nomination papers must be complete and self-contained in accordance with Rule 2; a separate appended letter cannot supply required particulars not appearing on the paper itself.
A person who acts as proposer or seconder cannot also validly be one of the eighteen approvers required by the rule.
A signature that is the name of a firm does not qualify as the signature of an individual approver.
Multiple nomination papers may be used in principle, but each must be complete in itself or properly connected on their face (for example by including the candidate's name, description and address on each), and mere pinning or gumming together is insufficient to effect that connection.

The Court stated these requirements and consequences in disposing of the present appeal. The opinion does not present or cite prior judicial authorities as binding precedents in the text provided; rather, it rests its decision on interpretation and application of the election rules and the facts before the Court.

Show full summary ...

Narendra Nath Mitter v. Radha Charan Pal

Sanderson, C.J:— This is an appeal by Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chaudhuri. The matter arose in connection with the candidature of Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter for the forthcoming Municipal Election in Calcutta. This gentleman was a candidate for the Corporation, and he sent, in certain documents to the Chairman of the Corporation in connection with his nomination. An objection was taken to these documents as not constituting a valid nomination.

The Chairman decided in favour of Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter. A Rule was obtained under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and, upon the hearing of that Rule the learned Judge made it absolute with the result that he overruled the decision which the Chairman of the Corporation had arrived.

Now, the rule which relates to this matter is one of the rules relating to the conduct of elections which were made in pursuance of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899. This is rule 2 and it runs as follows:—

“Every person who is a candidate for election shall send to the Chairman, not less than fourteen days before the day fixed for the election, a nomination paper containing:—

(a) his name and description and a statement of his place of abode,

(b) the name of the ward or wards for which he purposes co-stand,

(c) the signature of two voters other than the candidate in each such ward who respectively propose and second his candidature, and

(d) the signature of eighteen voters other than the candidate in each such ward who approve his nomination.”

The candidate in this case, Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter, sent in four documents. The first was a letter signed by himself and addressed to the Chairman of the Corporation of Calcutta in these words:

“Dear Sir,

I beg to send you herewith my nomination-paper for election as Municipal Commissioner for Ward No. 6 at the ensuing General Election. The nomination-paper is duly proposed, seconded and approved.

Yours truly,

(Sd.) Narendra Nath Mitter,

Hony. Presidency Magistrate,

Landlord and Banker, Hindu,

Bengalee”

Attached to that letter by means of a clip, as we were informed, were three forms of a nomination-paper. These three forms, it appears, were gummed together. The first one is as follows:—

“I hereby propose Babu Narendra Nath Mitter, wrongly put down as Nagendra Nath Mitter in the, Election Roll, of premises No. 84, Muktaram Babu Street, who is recorded as voter No. 1553 of Ward No. 6, as a candidate for election as Commissioner of Ward No. 6.”

Then the name of the proposer is written, and his number as voter and that of his ward, and, then the name of the seconder is written, Atal Coomar Sen, with his number as voter and the number of the ward. Underneath there are the names of the 18 approvers with their numbers as voters, and the number of the ward opposite to their names. The name of Atal Coomar Sen appears as approver as well as seconder, and the Chairman of the Corporation has found that No. 15, the name of which is Sew Kissen Srikissen, is that of a firm, and the signature is not the signature of an individual.

The second nomination paper is in the same, form as that which I have read, but it does not contain the names of the proposer and the seconder, nor does it contain the name of the candidate. That form is signed by 14 people, the name of Atal Coomar Sen again appearing as an approver.

The third document is another similar nomination form, and that again does not contain the names of the proposer and the seconder, nor does it contain the name of the candidate.

Now, the first objection which is taken to these documents being a valid nomination was that the nomination-paper did not contain the description of the candidate.

The answer which was given to that objection was, that it was true that the actual form of the nomination-paper did not contain the description of the candidate, but the description of the candidate appeared fully from the letter which had been attached to the nomination paper and that the letter and the three nomination forms ought to be taken together as one nomination-paper, and that consequently the nomination-paper did contain the description of the candidate.

In my judgment that contention is not sound, and I think that the first objection which, is raised to these documents being a valid nomination-paper, viz., that the nomination-paper does not contain the description of the candidate, is a good objection. I think it is clear that what is contemplated by the rules is that a nomination-paper should be self-contained and complete and that the nomination-paper which is presented by the candidate must contain all the matters which are specified in rule 2, one of them being the description of the candidate we were informed that the forms which were used were supplied by the Corporation: if this be so, I think it is somewhat unfortunate that the forms do not contain a space which is allocated to the description of the candidate. There is a space allocated to his name and there is also a space allocated to his place of residence, but there is no space allocated to his description, as is the case in the forms which are prescribed under the Municipal Corporation Act in England: in those forms there is a separate column provided for the description of the candidate.

On the facts of this case, in my judgment, the nomination-paper which has been sent to the Chairman of the Corporation does not contain the description of the candidate.

The second point which is urged against the validity of this nomination was that the name of the seconder had been included as one of the approvers. I think it is clear from the wording of the rule that if a person signs the nomination paper of a candidate either as proposer or seconder, he cannot also sign it as an approver. Therefore, I agree with the decision of the Chairman of the Corporation when he decided that the signature of Atal Coomar Sen as an approver was not in order.

The Chairman of the Corporation has also decided that No. 15 is the name of a firm and not of an individual: and, the learned Advocate-General has quite correctly, if I may say so, admitted that he could not support that as a good signature of an approver on the ground that it is the name of a firm and not the signature of an individual voter. Consequently, if the nomination is to be confined to the first of these three forms, in my judgment it is not a good nomination, for the following reasons:—

First, that it does not contain the description of the candidate; and, secondly, that it does not contain the names of 18 approvers in addition to the names of the proposer and seconder.

The result is that there is really an end of this matter, unless this Court thinks it right that either the second or the third form ought to be taken into consideration, and ought to be treated as part of the nomination paper. In my judgment, neither the second nor the third form ought to be taken as part of the nomination-paper, and the ground of my decision is, that neither the second nor the third form contains the name of the candidate and the name of the proposer or seconder. The intention of the rule is, that a nomination-paper, in order to be valid should, amongst other matters, contain the name of the candidate, and the names of the proposer and seconder and then the names of the approvers. And to my mind it would not be right for us to say that the second form and the third form should be taken as part of the nomination-paper, merely because the three forms are gummed together and sent to the Chairman at the same time. If we were so to hold, we should be laying the procedure tn respect of these elections open to the possibility of considerable abuse, because unless the names of the candidate, his proposer and seconder appear on the paper which the approvers are asked to sign, it might be that signatures of approvers might be obtained by representing that they were giving their approval to a particular candidate, when, as a matter of fact, their signatures were intended to be used for another candidate. I do not say that this was done in this case. I only use that as an illustration for pointing out that it would be impossible for us to hold that the second and third forms ought to be looked upon as part of the nomination-paper simply because they are attached to the first nomination-paper and sent to the Chairman at one and the same time. I do not express any opinion as to whether the second and third forms might have been looked at for the purpose of seeing whether the nomination is valid, if they had contained the names of the candidate and of his proposer and the seconder. I confine my judgment to the facts of this case and decide that we cannot hold that the second and third forms are part of the nomination paper for the reason that neither of them contained the names of the candidate, the proposer and the seconder.

There is one other matter to which I wish to refer before I conclude my judgment. It is said that it was alleged before the Chairman of the Corporation and also before Mr. Justice Chaudhuri that some of the signatures of the approvers, in what I call the second form (which contains the names of the 14 approvers), were intended to be in support of the candidature of some person other than Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter, and the learned Advocate-General applied to the Court that we should admit certain affidavits with regard to that matter, inasmuch as he said that reflection had been cast upon the reputation of his client. It appears that those affidavits? had not been used before Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, but that the learned counsel who was then acting for the appellant (which learned counsel is not before us to-day) decided not to use these affidavits before the learned Judge.

Under those circumstances, the respondent objected to their admission on the hearing of the appeal and we declined to admit them.

Having regard to the conclusions which I have already expressed in first part of my judgment, it is not necessary for me to come to any decision about this matter; I express no opinion as to whether there is any ground for the suggestion that some of these names were obtained for another candidate or another proposed candidate.

In this connection I may draw attention to the fact that, as I read the judgment of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, the learned Judge gave no definite finding on this print, Therefore, that matter, in my judgment, remains undecided; at any rate, so far as my judgment goes, I express no opinion one way or the other, as for the reasons I have stated it is unnecessary for my judgment.

For these reasons, I think that the appeal should be dismissed with costs and the Rule discharged with costs.

At the request of the learned Advocate-General to deal with a further point that he urged, I will add this to my judgment. The learned Advocate-General contended that the nomination-paper did contain a description of the candidate because after the address of the candidate appear these words:—

“Who is recorded as Voter No. 1553 of Ward No. G”.

In my judgment that by itself is not a “description” within the meaning of rule 2(a). When one refers to the Election Roll, one finds there the name of Nagendra Nath Mitter, which ought to be Narendra Nath Mitter opposite the No. 1553, and his address No. 84, Muktaram Babu Street. This carries the matter no further than the nomination paper itself. I cannot think that such a reference by itself can be held to be a description of the candidate within the meaning of the rule.

Woodroffe, J.:— Rule 2 of the Election Rules says that a nomination is to be sent to the Chairman. In my opinion, if there be one such paper, it must be complete in itself, which is not the case here, for the description given on an appended letter from the candidate is not sufficient. I see no reason, however, why alternative nomination papers should not be sent to the Chairman, so that if one is held, either in whole or in part, to be invalid, the other may be used. In such case, however, each nomination-paper should be complete in itself. I see also no reason why the candidate should not send in a nomination-paper with names of more than 18 voters as mentioned in the rule, in order to meet the case of possible objections to any of the voters whose names appear upon the paper. In such case, more than one nomination paper may be used, but the papers must be connected (otherwise than as here by mere pinning together). That connection is effected by placing on each paper the name, description and address of the candidate as appearing in the first paper. If one were to hold otherwise, we should open the door to fraud.

Here the first paper does not contain a description of the candidate such as is given in the letter appended to the nomination-paper. I agree with the Chairman that a seconder cannot also sign as an approver. The 18 voters in clause (d) of the rule are clearly 18 voters other than those mentioned in clause (c). This excludes voter No. 10 on the first mentioned paper. The number of approvers in the first paper is (excluding also, as is admitted, voter No. 15 which is the name of a firm) 16 only. This is insufficient, unless we include voters on the other two papers said to be attached to the first paper. The second paper must be excluded. It is said to include the names of voters who say that they intended to support Babu Promotho Nath Pramanick. But apart from this, that paper is not complete. I think the third sheet ought to be excluded on the same ground, namely, that it is not in itself complete and is not thus connected on its face with the first paper, so as to make it capable of being read with it.

It is suggested that some impropriety was a committed in putting forward the second paper as to which Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, according to the report read to us, does not seem to have come to any definite finding. It is impossible to accede to the application of the appellant to put in further affidavits for his learned counsel said at the hearing before Mr. Justice Chaudhuri that he would not give evidence on this point. It is not necessary, however, to go into this matter further, for the appeal fails on the technical ground seated and should be dismissed with costs. I agree that reference to the number of the candidate in the Election Roll is not by itself a sufficient description within the meaning of the rule: though, if it were, the appeal fails on the other grounds stated.

Attorney for the appellant: N.C Bose.

Attorneys for the respondent: Kar, Mehta & Co.

J.C

Appeal dismissed.

Narendra Nath Mitter v. Radha Charan Pal

Judicial Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent / Advocate-General's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Narendra Nath Mitter v. Radha Charan Pal

Comments