Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. At the election sixteen votes of those present at the meeting of the Agra Province Zamindars' Association on 24th January 1934, were cast in favour of the plaintiff. Ten persons voted for the plaintiff by proxy. There were three other candidates-the defendant, B. Gajadhar Prasad, Raja Harpal Singh and Capt. Raja Durga Narain Singh. Capt. Raja Durga Narain Singh received 33 votes from those present at the meeting and 382 votes by proxy, Raja Harpal Singh 29 votes of those present at the meeting and 385 by proxy; Gajadhar Prasad 24 votes of those-present at the meeting and 383 by proxy. The record of the proceedings shows that there were 34 persons present at the meeting and that in all 389 proxies were produced. In these circumstances it is clear that at the meeting at which the election of representatives to the Court of Wards took place a majority of those present or voting by proxy did not support the candidature of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff maintained that according to the general principles of common law as applied in England in election oases his client being next on the poll to the candidate disqualified, is entitled to a declaration in terms of the aforementioned prayer.

4. We would observe in the first place that even if the principles applicable to Parliamentary elections can be applied to an election of a member of the Court of Wards by the Agra Province Zamindars' Association, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed. We refer on this matter to Rogers on Elections, Vol. 2, p. 81. There the principle is adumbrated that there must be notice to the electors who supported the candidate disqualified of the disqualification before their votes can be taken as thrown away and the next candidate on the poll declared elected in place of the disqualified candidate. Now in the present case although the question as to the defendant Gajadhar Prasad's eligibility for election to the Court of Wards was raised at the meeting of the Association on 24th January 1934, there; was no notice of any such disqualification to the electors who voted by proxy. It has been held however that the rules applicable to Parliamentary elections in England have no application to elections such as the election of a member of the Agra Zamindars' Association to the Court of Wards. In this connexion we would refer to the case in Harnandan Prasad v. Kamta Prasad A.I.R. 1934 All. 376. In that case the question raised was as to the validity of the election of a certain person as a Chairman of the Municipal Board. The section of the Municipalities Act which was held to be applicable was Section 92. Section 92(1) is in the following terms: