In Re: M. Vijiaraghava Pillai; P. Theagaraya Chetti and P.M. Appaswami Pillai

These are petitions to revise the order of the Presidency Magistrate, George Town. Two applications were made to him by the counter-

petitioners to declare that the inclusion of the petitioner as a candidate for Municipal election by the President of the Corporation was illegal under

Rule 5 of the rules framed by the Government in pursuance of the powers given to them by Section 413 of Act III of 1904. The Magistrate

allowed the applications. Against that order these petitions have been filed. The learned Judge who admitted the petitions expressed doubts

regarding the powers of the High Court to revise the order of the Magistrate. We therefore called upon the petitioner''s Vakil to argue that

preliminary point. Mr. T. Ethiraja Mudaliar, who appeared for the petitioner, conceded that the petition did not lie u/s 439. He however contended

that under the Charter Act, the High Court was competent to revise the order. Section 15 says that the High Court shall have superintendence over

all courts which may be subject to its appellate jurisdiction. Is a Magistrate giving his decision under the rules framed by the Government in this

behalf ''""a court"" subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court ? No procedure is prescribed by the rules : and although the Magistrate is

competent to take evidence in the case, it is not suggested that this is in pursuance of any statutory obligation to do so. The contention of the

learned Vakil for the petitioner is that the Magistrate is ordinarily subject to the control of the High Court, and any power given to him by the Local

Government must be considered to have been conferred on him in his capacity as being subject to the supervising power of the High Court. It

seems to us that this contention is untenable. It was held in Minakshi v. Subrahmanya ILR (1887) M. 26 by the Judicial Committee, that the

expression Civil Court in Section 10 of Act XX of 1863 does not import that the presiding officer is subject to the appellate authority of the High

Court. They say ""In the opinion of their Lordships the tenth section places the right of appointing a member of the committee in the Civil Court not

as a matter of ordinary Civil jurisdiction, but because the officer who constitutes the Civil Court is sure to be one of weight and authority, and with

the best means of knowing the movements of local opinion and feeling, and one can hardly imagine a case in which it would be more desirable that

the discretion should be exercised by a person acquainted with the District and with all the surroundings. We are of opinion that similar

considerations are responsible for the Local Government vesting in the Presidency Magistrate the discretion to pronounce an opinion on the

competency or otherwise of a candidate for election. We may also, in this connection refer to Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the District

Municipalities Act. The Local Government has empowered Collectors to exercise the function which the Presidency Magistrates in the Town of

Madras exercise under the rule in question. It has never been suggested that a Collector''s decision can be revised by the High Court. The learned

Vakil for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision in Vasudeva Aiyar Vs. The Devasthanam Committee of Negapatam and T.A.

Balakrishna Odayar, which holds that the High Court has power to hear a revision petition, u/s 115 of the CPC against an order passed u/s 10 of

Act XX of 1863. We are informed that that decision is under appeal to His Majesty in Council, and apart from this we do not think the decision

has any direct bearing upon the rnatter we have to decide. Mr. Ethiraja Mudaliar cited Sawmi Chetty Vs. The Corporation of Madras, to show

that the Magistrate acting u/s 172 of the City Municipal Act is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The reason of that decision, we take to

be this. If the Magistrate had acted legally, he should have referred the matter to the High Court. By not doing so, he has illegally exercised

jurisdiction to decide the matter himself and has prevented the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Judge was

therefore justified in that case in taking cognisance of the case in revision. The mere fact that Sections 172 and 176 of the City Municipal Act put

the Presidency Magistrate under the control of the High Court in certain cases is not an argument for the position that in framing rules u/s 413, the

Local Government invested the Magistrate with powers to be exercised subject to the superintendence of the High Court. The learned Crown

Prosecutor argues that unless an officer is clothed with powers to give effect to his decision, he is not acting judicially. The reference to the

functions of the Court in 3 Blackstone pages 22 and 23 supports this contention. Lord Justice Fry in Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter

Garden Society v. Parkinson (1893) 1Q. B. 431 makes some observations which define the functions of a Court of Law. Applying the tests

mentioned by the Lord Justice, the Magistrate acting under the rules could not be regarded as a Court of law. Reference may also be made to Vol.

9 Halsbury, page 9, where it is said, ""Many bodies are not Courts, although they have to decide questions and in so doing have to act judicially in

the sense, that the proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality."" To the same effect is the conclusion to which Mr. Justice Subrah-

manya Aiyar came in Manavala Goundan v. Kumarappa Reddy ILR (1907) M. 326 regarding the competency of the High Court to revise the

orders of the Distict Registrars u/s 622 of the old Code of Civil Procedure. We are therefore of opinion that the Presidency Magistrate in this

particular instance is not a court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. He is in the position of referee between the President and

the candidate. The rule declares his decision to be final, as in the case of the Collector under the District Municipalities Act. The decision in Balaji

Sahharam v. Merwanji Naoroji ILR (1895) B. 279 may also be cited in this connection. It was held in that case that a District Judge acting u/s 23

of the Bombay District Municipal Act was not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In Rudolf Stallmann v. Emperor ILR (1911)

C. 547 the learned judges decided that the High Court had no jurisdiction, under the Charter Act to revise the prcceedings of the Presidency

Magistrate acting under Sections 3 & 4 of the Extradition Act (XV. of 1903). These authorities show that when quasi-judicial functions are

delegated to an officer whose decisions are ordinarily subject to the revisional powers of the High Court he is not with reference to the delegated

power necessarily subject to our appellate or revisional authority.

We have given our careful consideration to these cases and we are constrained to hold that the High Court has no power to revise the order

passed by the Magistrate in these cases.

For all these reasons, we dismiss the petitions.