1949 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court lacks authority to revise lower court decision under Bengal Municipal Act. Petition dismissed.

Jahnabi Prosad Banerjee and Ors. Versus Basudeb Paul and Ors.

Jahnabi Prosad Banerjee and Ors. Versus Basudeb Paul and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the rejection of the nomination paper.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.3. Validity of Sections 39B and 43 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.4. Powers of superintendence and revision of the High Court under various statutes.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Rejection of the Nomination Paper:The plaintiff, Basudeo Paul, filed a nomination paper for the election in Ward V of Naihati Municipality, which was rejected by the Chairman of the Municipality. An appeal to the District Magistrate was also dismissed. Subsequently, the election took place, and the petitioners were declared elected. The plaintiff then filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 in the Court of the District Judge, Alipur, seeking a declaration that the rejection of his nomination paper was illegal and ultra vires, and that the election result was materially affected by this rejection and should be set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908:The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 115, CPC, 1908, challenging the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. The preliminary objection raised was whether the High Court had the power to revise the decision in light of Sections 39B and 43 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, which purported to make the decision of the District Judge final and non-revisable.3. Validity of Sections 39B and 43 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932:The petitioners argued that Sections 39B and 43 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature as they affected the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 115, CPC, 1908, and other statutory provisions. The court examined the historical context and legislative framework, including the powers of the High Court and its predecessor courts, the Sudder Dewani Adalat and the Supreme Court, and the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1915, and the Government of India Act, 1935.4. Powers of Superintendence and Revision of the High Court under Various Statutes:The court traced the evolution of the High Court's powers of revision and superintendence, starting from the establishment of the Mayor's Court in 1726, through the setting up of the Supreme Court in 1774, and the subsequent establishment of the High Court under the Charter Act of 1861. The court noted that the High Court's revisional powers were conferred by various statutes, including Section 15 of the Charter Act, Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, and Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court also considered the impact of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, which conferred powers of superintendence on the High Court.The court concluded that Sections 39B and 43 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, were within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature, as they regulated the jurisdiction of courts set up by the Provincial Legislature. However, these sections could not affect the power of the High Court under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, which was later replaced by Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The court held that the High Court's power of judicial interference was taken away by Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and that Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was the only provision conferring powers of revision on the High Court after the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935.Conclusion:The court held that the High Court had no power to interfere in revision with the order complained of, under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, due to the bar imposed by Section 43 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The preliminary objection succeeded, and the rule was discharged with costs. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.