http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SURAT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHORI LAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/1969

BENCH:

ACT: Delhi   Development  Authority  Act  (61  of  1957),   Delhi Development   Authority  Rules,  1958,  r.  3(1)(e),   Delhi Development Authority (Election of Representatives of  Delhi Municipal Council) Rules, 1958, r. 2(5) and Delhi  Municipal Corporation (procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1958, reg. 33-’Validly nominated’, in r. 2(5) of Election of Representatives  Rules-If gives power to Mayor to decide  on disqualifications-Point  of  order, meaning  of-Decision  of Mayor, final-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The Delhi Development Authority is constituted under s. 3 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.  Two. of the members of the Authority  ’are  to  be  representatives  of  the  Municipal Corporation  of  Delhi,  elected  by  the  Councillors   and Aldermen  of  the Corporation from among  themselves.   Rule 3(1) of the Delhi Development Authority Rules, 1958,  passed under    the    Act,   prescribes   various    grounds    of disqualification for being a member of the Authority.  Under r.  3 (1 )(e) a person is disqualified if he  is  interested directly  or  indirectly in any business of  development  of land in Delhi.     The  appellant,  first respondent,  and  another,  filed nomination papers for being elected to the Delhi Development Authority as representatives of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.   On  an  objection that  the  first  respondent  was disqualified  because. he was interested in the business  of development  of  land  in Delhi, the  Mayor  of  Delhi,  who presided  at the meeting, rejected the nomination  paper  of the  first  respondent  ’and  declared  the  two   remaining candidates elected.     The first respondent thereupon filed & writ petition  in the High Court which was allowed.  In appeal to this  Court, it  was  contended:  (1 ) That under r. 2(5)  of  the  Delhi Development Authority (Election of Representatives of  Delhi Municipal  Corporation) Rules, 1958, framed under the  Delhi Development  Act,  when  the  number  of  validly  nominated candidates   is   equal   or  less  than   the   number   of representatives  to be elected the Mayor shall  declare  all such  candidates  to be duly elected, and if the  number  of validly nominated candidates is more, a roll shall be taken, that  the expression ’validly nominated candidates’  implies that  the Mayor has the power to determine whether a  person is validly nominated, and for this purpose, the: Mayor could consider not only whether the requirements of nomination  in cls. (2) and (3) are complied with, but also, whether he  is subject to any disqualification; and (2) That the  objection about  the first respondent amounted to raising a  point  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

order and the decision of the Mayor on a point of order  was final  under  reg.  33 of the  Delhi  Municipal  Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1958.     HELD:  (1)  The Delhi Development Act  and  the  various rules made thereunder contain no machinery for setting aside an  election to the Delhi Development Authority nor do  they contain  an express provision authorising the Mayor to  hold an inquiry and reject a nomination.  In the absence of  such an  express provision the Mayor could not, at a  meeting  of the  Corporation,  hold an inquiry to  ascertain  whether  a candidate was subject to any of the disqualifications set out in r. 3 of the Delhi Development   Authority  Rules.   The   expression   validly nominated   in  r. 2(5) of the Election  of  Representatives Rules,  implies only that a Mayor may determine whether  the requirements  of els. (2) and (3) of r. 2 are satisfied  and not   to  determine  whether  a  candidate.  was   under   a disqualification at the date of nomination. [62. F--G--H; 63 A--B, F]     (2) A point of order is primarily intended to  determine the interpretation of the rules and regulations governing  a meeting  and objections in relation to a meeting.   It  does not  include an objection to the competence of a  member  to stand  for election to a Committee.  In fact, the  objection to  the nomination of the respondent was never raised  as  a point of order. [64 C--D, F]     Even if it be assumed that the objection was raised  and decided  by the Mayor as a point of order, the  Mayor  could not do so by his mere fiat without calling for evidence  and without discussion.  The finality contemplated by reg. 33 is only  for the purpose of procedure and conduct of  meetings. [64 E]     Therefore, whether the first respondent was at the  date of  nomination disqualified from being elected a  member  of the Delhi Development Authority could only be decided in  an appropriate  proceeding  in  a  civil  court  after  he  was elected. [64]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2195 of 1968.     Appeal  from the judgment and order dated September  12, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 1968. Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant.     D.D.   Chawla,  Bishamber  Lal  and  H.K.   Puri,    for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Shah,  Ag.  C.J.  One of the items at a meeting  of  the Delhi Corporation held on April 24, 1967 was the election of two   of  its  representatives  on  the  Delhi   Development Authority.   Three candidates had filed  nomination  papers: they were Kishori Lal, Kedar Nath Sahni and Surat Singh.  It was objected that Kishori Lal was interested in the business of development of land in Delhi as a shareholder and also as a  Director of Capital Land Builders (Private) Ltd.  Kishori Lal denied that he was so interested. The Mayor of Delhi who presided at the meeting rejected the nomination paper on the ground  that Kishori Lal was interested in the  business  of sale  and purchase of land in Delhi and was on that  account disqualified  to  be  a  member  of  the  Delhi  Development Authority.   The  two candidates who remained in  the  field were declared duly elected by the Mayor.     In  a  petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

filed  by  Kishori Lal, Deshpande, J. of the High  Court  of Delhi quashed 61 the  order of the Mayor rejecting the: nomination  paper  of Kishori  Lal  and declaring illegal the  election  of  Surat Singh  and  Kedar  Nath  Sahni  as  representatives  of  the Corporation  on   the   Delhi  Development  Authority.   The learned  Judge  directed  that  another  election  be   held according to  law.  Against  the  decision  of Deshpande, J. appeals  were preferred by   the  Mayor of  the  Corporation of  Delhi and by Surat Singh.  The High Court confirmed  the order  passed by Deshpande, J.  With certificate granted  by the High Court this appeal is preferred by Surat Singh.  The Mayor has not preferred any appeal.               Two  contentions are urged in support of  this               appeal:                   (1)   that   the  Mayor  was   under   the               provisions  of the Delhi Corporation  Act  and               the   rules   framed thereunder  competent  to               reject  the nomination, power in  that  behalf               having been conferred upon him; and                   (2)  in  any   case,   objection   against               nomination  amounted  to raising  a  point  of               order,  and  the ruling of the Mayo.r  on  the               point  of  order was by rule 33 of  the  Delhi               Municipal  Corporation (Procedure and  Conduct               of Business) Regulations, 1958, final.     The Delhi Development Authority is constituted under  s. 3 of the Delhi Development Act 61 of 1957.  Members  of  the Authority  are elected or nominated from different  sources. Two  of  the  members  of  the  authority  are  to  be   the representatives  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi, elected  by the Councillors and Aldermen of the  Corporation from  among  themselves. Rules were framed  by  the  Central Government  in exercise of the power conferred by s.  56  of the  Delhi  Development Act 61  of  1957 called  the  "Delhi Development  Authority  Rules,  1958".  By rule 3 (1 )(e)  a person is disqualified for being chosen as, or for being,  a member  of  the Authority if he is  interested  directly  or indirectly in any business of development of land in  Delhi. The Central Government has framed another set of rules under s.  56  of  the Delhi Development  Act,  called  the   Delhi Development Authority (Election of Representatives of  Delhi Municipal Corporation) Rules, 1958. Rule 2, insofar as it is relevant, provides:                  "( 1 ) The Election of the  representatives               of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi .     in               pursuance of clause (e) of sub-section (3)  of               section  3 of the Delhi Development Act,  1957               (61   of 1957), shall be held at a meeting  of               the   Corporation  in   accordance  with   the               system  of 62               proportional representation by means  of   the               single  transferable  vote and the  voting  at               such election shall be by secret ballot.                        (2)  Every candidate for election  as               such  representative shall be nominated  by  a               nomination  paper  in Form 1  which  shall  be               signed by the candidate and two other  members               of  the Corporation as proposer  and  seconder               and     delivered     to     the     Municipal               Secretary  .....               (3)  No member of the Corporation shall   sign               as              proposer   or   seconder   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             nomination of more            candidates  than               the   number  of  representatives   to      be               elected.   Any  nomination  paper   subscribed               in  contravention  of this sub-rule  shall  be               invalid   and shall be declared as such by the               Mayor.               (4)                       (5)   Where  the  number  of   validly               nominated  candidates  is equal  to,  or  less               than,  the  number of  representatives  to  be               elected,   the  Mayor shall declare  all  such               candidates    to    be   duly    elected    as               representatives of the Corporation, and  where               the number of validly nominated candidates  is               more than the number of representatives to  be               elected, a poll shall be taken."         Clauses  (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and  (11)  provide for the method of polling and the declaration of the  result of the poll. But the Act and the rules contain no  machinery for  setting  aside  an election to  the  Delhi  Development Authority.       It  is common ground that the Delhi  Corporation  Act, 1957    and the rules framed by the Central Government under s.  56    of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 d9 not  contain any express    provision authorising the Mayor to reject the nomination.   It was    contended however, that the use   of the.   expression  "validly    nominated candidates" in  cl. (5 ) of r. 2 of the Delhi Development    Authority (Election of  Representatives of Delhi Municipal  Corporation)  Rules, 1958 implies that the Mayor has  the  power    to  determine whether   a   person  is  validly    nominated,    and    in determining whether he is validly nominated the Mayor has to consider   not  only  whether  the  requirements of  clauses (2)     & (3) are complied with, but whether  the  candidate nominated     is  subject to any disqualification.   In  our judgment the expression    "validly nominated" occurring  in sub-r. (5) of r. 2 of the Election Rules, 1958, implies that the Mayor may determine whether 63 the  requirements  of cls. (2) and (3)  are  satisfied.  The Mayor cannot obviously hold a detailed enquiry having regard to  the terms    of r. 3 of the Delhi Development  Authority Rules  to ascertain whether the candidate is subject to  any of  the disqualifications set out in that rule.   The  Rules provide   for  diverse  grounds  of  disqualification   from membership  of the Authority.  A person is unsound mind  and stands  so  declared  by  a competent court;  if  he  is  an undischarged insolvent; if he is not a citizen of India,  or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; if  he is a  licensed  architect,  draughts man, engineer, plumber, surveyor or town planner or employee of  a  firm  of which any such licensed  person  is  also  a partner; if he is interested, directly or indirectly in  any business  of  development  of  land  in  Delhi;  if  he   is interested   in  any subsisting contract made with,  or  any work  being done for, the Authority except as a  shareholder (other  than a director) in an incorporated company or as  a member  of  co-operative  society;  if  he  is  retained  or employed  in any professional capacity either personally  or in the name of a firm of which he is a partner or with which he is engaged in a professional capacity, in connection with any cause or proceeding in which the Authority is interested or  concerned;  if  he, having held  any  office  under  the Government, has been dismissed for corruption or  disloyalty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

to the State within a period of four years; and if he  fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him, otherwise than as an  agent, receiver, trustee an executor, to  the  Authority within three months  after  a notice in that behalf has been served  upon  him.   By cl. (j) of r. 3  in  the  prescribed eventualities disqualifications do not operate. Normally the Mayor cannot in the absence of an express provision hold  an enquiry  in  a meeting of the Corporation into  the  several matters   contemplated  by  r.  3  before  he  accepts   the nomination paper.  In our judgment the High Court was  right in  holding that the Mayor was not competent under the Rules to   determine   whether   a   candidate:   was   under    a disqualification  at  the  date of  nomination.   The  other argument raised by  counsel  for  the appellant also has  no substance.   Objection to the nomination of Kishori Lal  was not  raised and could not be raised as a point of  order  at the  meeting.   Rule 33 of the Delhi  Municipal  Corporation (Procedure   and   Conduct   of   Business)     Regulations, 1958provides:                      "Any member may at any time during  the               meeting  of the Corporation submit a point  of               order  for the decision of the Mayor,  but  in               doing so shall confine himself to stating  the               point and the Mayor shall decide all points of               order  which may arise or be referred  to  him               and his decision shall be final". 64     A  point  of  order includes an objection  raised  by  a member   at  a  meeting  for  breaches  of  the   Rules   or regulations,  to  some  defect in the  constitution  of  the meeting (e.g. absence of a  quorum), to the use of offensive or  abusive  language, or to invite. the  attention  of  the presiding  officer that the motion under discussion  is  not within the scope of the notice, or to any similar  infirmity or irregularity in the proceeding.  In addition to  breaches of   the  general or special rules use of insulting  or  bad language,  gross accusations or insinuation and unseemly  or contemptible  conduct  may  be taken exception  to  in  this manner.    (Law  and  Practice  Relating  to  Meetings.   F. Shackleton.   p.   97,  5th  Edition). A point of  order  is primarily  intended to determine the interpretation  of  the rules  and  regulations governing the meeting: it  does  not contemplate  any  discussion  on  any  event.   It   cannot, therefore, be in the form of an objection to the  competence of  a member to stand for election to a Committee.  By  the, Delhi  Development Authority Rules, existence of any of  the disabilities   referred   to   in   r.   3   constitutes   a disqualification.  A claim that a candidate is subject to  a disqualification  cannot  be decided  without  evidence  and discussion:  such an objection cannot, therefore,  form  the subject of a point of order.     Rule  33 has made the decision of the Mayor final.   But it  is  not intended thereby that a member may  be  declared disqualified  by an order made without calling for  evidence and  without discussion, and by the mere fiat of the  Mayor. Nor is it intended to remove an existing disqualification of a  member  without ,evidence and without discussion.     The  argument that objection to the   nomination   paper of  Kishori  Lal was raised by way of a point of  order  was never  raised  in  the petition and it  is  clear  from  the proceedings  of  the meeting that it was not  treated  as  a point of order.  Even if it be grated that the objection was raised  and  decided  by  the Mayor as  a  ’point  of  order jurisdiction   of  the   civil  court  to   determine    the existence  of  a statutory disqualification cannot  on  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

account  be excluded.  The finality is only for the  purpose of  the procedure and conduct of the meeting and confers  no rights  upon any  person. Whether  Kishori  Lal  was  at  the  date   of    nomination disqualified  from  being  elected a  member  of  the  Delhi Development  Authority will therefore have to be decided  in an   appropriate proceeding if he is declared elected at  an election held according to law. The   appeal   fails   and   is   dismissed   with    costs. 1 V.P.S.                                                Appeal dismissed.