1930 (4) TMI 13 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies certiorari due to availability of alternative remedy, emphasizing distinction between judicial and ministerial acts.

Venkata Narasimha Rao Bahadur Versus Municipal Council, Narasaraopet and Ors.

The court declined to issue a writ of certiorari as an alternative remedy was available. It determined that the resolution to be set aside was not an act ... - Issues:1. Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued when another remedy is available.2. Whether the resolution sought to be set aside is an act of a judicial authority.3. Whether the presiding officer's actions in declaring the election results constituted a judicial act.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of whether a writ of certiorari should be issued when an alternative remedy is available. The court notes that unless statutes or bye-laws expressly exclude certiorari, it may still be issued in cases where the authority acted without jurisdiction. Reference is made to legal precedents such as Ex parte Bradlaugh and Nando Lal Bose v. Corporation for the Town of Calcutta to emphasize that certiorari should be used under exceptional circumstances only.2. The judgment delves into the question of whether the resolution sought to be set aside constitutes an act of a judicial authority. It is highlighted that the writ of certiorari is typically used to quash determinations of bodies entrusted with judicial functions beyond the ordinary legal procedure. The court cites cases like Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Justices to establish the criteria for identifying judicial acts, emphasizing acts done by competent authorities upon consideration of facts and circumstances that impose liability or affect rights of others.3. The judgment further explores whether the presiding officer's actions in declaring the election results amounted to a judicial act. It is noted that the presiding officer's role was primarily ministerial, involving the counting of votes and declaration of the result based on specified rules. The court analyzes the functions of the presiding officer as outlined in the rules under the Madras District Municipalities Act, concluding that the officer's actions did not exceed ministerial functions, thereby precluding the need for a writ of certiorari in this context. Reference is made to Pritchard v. Mayor of Bangor to draw parallels between the functions of the presiding officer and those of a Returning Officer in a municipal election.Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the application for a writ of certiorari in the context of an election dispute, emphasizing the limited scope for the use of certiorari and the distinction between judicial and ministerial acts in such proceedings.