SURAT SINGH versus KISHORI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 22-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
., 
SURAT SINGH 
v. 
KISHORI LAL & ORS. 
August 22, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWA.MI AND A. N. GROVER, 
JJ.J 
Delhi Development Authority Act (61 of 1957), Delhi Development 
Authority Rules, 1958, r, 3(1) (e), Delhi Develo[!rr!ent Authority (Election 
of Representatives of Delhi Municipal Conci/) Rules, 1958, r. 2(5) and 
Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure ar.d Conduct of Business) Regu. 
lations, 1958, reg. 33-'Validly nominated', in r. 2(5) of Election of Re· 
presentatives Rules-If gives power to May'?r to decide on disqualiflcations 
-Point of order, meaning of-Decision or Mayor, final-Scope of. 
The Delhi Development Authority is couotituted under s. 3 of the Delhi 
Development Act, 1957. Two of the members of the Authority are to be 
representatives of the Municipal Corpdratio'l of Delhi, elected by the Coun-
cillors and Aldermen of the Corporati01 from among the!T'selves. 
Rule 
3(1) of the Delhi De,velopment Authorit) Rules, 1958, passed under the 
Act, prescribes various grounds of disqualificati'On for bein.sc a member of 
the Authority. Under r. 3(l)(e) a person is disqualified if he is interested 
directly or indirectly in my business of o•velopment of land in Delhi. 
The appellant, first respondent, and lt..J.Dther, filed nomination papers 
for being elected to the Delhi Development Authority as re.presentatives of 
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 
On an objection that the first res-
pondent was disqualified because he was interested in the business of deve-
lopment of land in Delhi, the Mayor of Delhi, who presided at the meeting, 
rejected the nomination paper of the_ fire' respondent 'and declared the two 
remainin~ candidates elected. 
The first respondent thereupon filed lo: writ petition in the. High Court 
which was allowed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended : (I) That 
under r. 2(5) of the Delhi Development Authority (Election of Represen· 
tatives 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 ni.Jmber 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 -oil shall be taken, that the ex-
pression 'validly nominated candidates' unplies 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 els. (2) and (3) are complrnd 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 order and the decision of the 
Mayor on a point of order was final under reg. 3 3 of the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1958. 
HELD : (I) The Delhi Development Act and the various rules made 
thereunder contain no machinery for settiLt~ aside an election to the Delhi 
Development Authority nor do they contain an express provision authoris-
ing the Mayor to hold 'au inquiry and reject a nomination. In the absen:ce 
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 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970] 2 S.C.R. 
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 deter-
mine whether the requirements of els. (2) and (3) of r. 2 are satisfied 
and not to determine \vhether a candidate. was under a disqualification at 
the date of nomination. [62 F-G-H; 63 A-B, Fl 
( 2) A point of order is primarily intended to determine the interpre-
tation of the rilles and regulations governing a meeting and objections in 
relation to a meeting. It does not ;nclude an objection to the competence 
of a n1.ember 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, FJ 
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 contem-
plated by reg. 33 is only for the purpose of procedure and conduct of 
· meetings. [64 E] 
T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.