# SURAT SINGH v. KISHORI LAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 59
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-08-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2195 of 1968
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/surat-singh-v-kishori-lal-ors-4925
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

'
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 Councillors 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 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_ 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 expression '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 authorising 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 determine 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 interpretation 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 fac

## Text

'
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 Councillors 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 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_ 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 expression '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 authorising 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 determine 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 interpretation 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 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 F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2195 of
1968.
Appeal from the judgmeint 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
Sha•1, 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 ar.1 was on that
account disqualified to be a member of the Delhi Development
Authority.
The two ca::ididates who remained in the field were
declared duly elected by the Mayor.
In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by
Kishori. Lal, Deshpande,'. J. of the High .Cour! of Delhi quashed
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SURAT SINGH V. KISHORI LAL (Shah, Ag. C.J.)
61
A
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
B
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 appealis preferred by Surat Singh. The
Mayor has not preferred any appeal.
c
D
E
Two contentions are urged in. support of this appeal :
(1)
(2)
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
in any
case,
objection
against nomination
amounted to raising a point of order, and the
ruling of the Mayor on the point of order was
by rule 33 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
(Procedure and Condnct 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
oi 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
F
conferred by s. 56 of the Delhi Develooment Act 61
of
1957
called the "Delhi Development Authority Rules,
1958". By
rule 3 (1 )( e) a person is disqualified fcir 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 !Jelhi. The
G
H
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 Municip~ Corporation) Rules, 1958. Rule 2, insofar as it is relevant, provides :
"( 1) The Election of the representatives of the Municipal Corporation of Pelhi . . . 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
(2)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
proportional representation by mea~s of
the
single transferable vote and the votmg at such
election shall be by secret ballot.
Every candidate f?r election as su~h r~presentative shall be nonunated by a nonunatton paper
in Form 1 which shall be signed by tlie candidate and two other members of the Corporation
as proposer and seconder and delivered to the
Municipal Secretary . . . . .
A
B
(3) No member of the Corporation shall sign as
proposer or seconder the nomination of . more
candidates than the number of represenfattyes to
C
be elected.
Any nomination pap~r 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 cai!didates 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
nn electiGn to the Delhi Development Authority.
It is rommon ground that the Delhi Corporation Act, 1957
and the rules framed by the Central Government under s. 56
of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 d<;i not contain any express
provision authorising the Mayor to reject the nomination. It was
contended however, that the use of the expression "vi\lidly
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 whe!her a person is validly nominated,
a!ld
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 tq 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
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
SURAT SINGH V. KISHORI LAL (Shah, Ag. C.J.)
6~
the requirements of els. (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 disquruifications set
out in that rule. .The Rules provide for diverse grounds of disqualification from membership of the Authority.
A person is.
Clrsqualified if he is ot 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,
draughtsman, 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 t.'ie Authority is interested
or concerned; if he, having held any office under the Government,
lias be~n dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State within
a period of four years; and if he fails to pay any arrear of any
kind due by him, otherwise than as an agent, receiver, trustee
or an executor, to the Authority within three months
after a
notice in that behalf has been ser\.ed 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 riot 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,
195~
provides:
"Any member max 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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
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 lhe attention of the presiding office· 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 lhe
general or special rules use of insulting or bad langnage, 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 ·lo
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 i> it intended
to remove an existing disqualification of
a
member
without
evidence and without discussion.
The argument that objection to the nomination
n~pcr of
Kishori Lal was raised by way of a point of order was never raised
in the vetition and it is clear from the proceedings of the meeting
that it was not treated as a point of order.
Even if it be granted
that the objection was raised and decided by the Mayor as a
point of order jurisdiction of the civil court to determ;ne the
existence of a statutory disqualification cannot on that 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.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H