9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1954 (5) TMI 21 - SC - Indian LawsChallenged the validity of the election - Jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation for the presentation of the election petition - errors apparent on the face of the record - Essential features of a writ of certiorari - violation of the election rules - Agents guilty of a number of major corrupt practices - application for amendment of the petition - Election Tribunal acted without jurisdiction - election expenses - omission to include hiring charges - HELD THAT - We now come to what the High Court has described as errors apparent on the face of the record. These errors according to the High Court appear in respect of three of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal however discussed this matter only in connection with the question as to whether the violation of any statutory rule or order in the holding of election did materially affect the result of the election which would entitle the Tribunal to declare the election of the returned candidate to be void under section 100(2) (c) of the Act. The petitioner it may be noted got only 34 votes less than the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal has found that the bus of Ahmed Jan which was procured by respondent No. 1 did carry to the polling booths about 60 voters in two trips and in the circumstances of the case it could be legitimately presumed that the majority of them did vote for respondent No. 1. If the votes of at least 40 or 50 of these persons be left out of account as being procured by corrupt practice of the first respondent the latter s majority by 34 votes would be completely wiped out and the petitioner would gain an undisputed majority. This the Tribunal as competent to do under the provisions of the Act and in doing so it could take into consideration the circumstances And probabilities of the case. But as we have stated already the Tribunal declared the appellant to be duly elected upon the specific finding that but for the corrupt practice of respondent No. I in the matter of procuring the service bus of Ahmed Jan the appellant would have got majority of the votes. We cannot say that this is an error apparent on the face of the record which would entitle the High Court to interfere by writ of certiorari. The High Court has observed that as regards the first item the finding of the Tribunal is based on no evidence and rests on mere speculation. We do not think that we can accept this view as correct. The first respondent stated that he had used two cars which were his own and incurred petrol expenses to the extent of Rs. 1 083-3-0. The Tribunal has found in paragraph 29 of its order on the basis of both documentary and oral evidence that the respondent No. I had used six other cars and had purchased petrol for them for the purpose of his election campaign. The Tribunal held that the first respondent must have spent not less than the sum of Rs. 1 250 on this account which was not included in the list of expenses. We are unable to say that this finding rests on no evidence. We are unable to say that the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 had omitted to include in his return of election expenses the dinner and hotel charges is a finding unsupported by any evidence. Reference may be made in this connection to paragraph 29(f) of the Tribunal s order which deals with the matter in detail. On the whole our opinion is that the so-called apparent errors pointed out by the High Court are neither errors of law nor do they appear on the face of the record. An appellate Court might have on a review of this evidence come to a different conclusion but these are not matters which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari. In our opinion the judgment of the High Court cannot be supported and this appeal must be allowed. The writ issued by the High Court will therefore be vacated.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Supreme Court of India in this judgment were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Grounds for Issuance of Certiorari by the High Court The Court examined the principles governing the issuance of a writ of certiorari, noting that such writs are intended to enable superior courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals, ensuring they act within their jurisdiction and adhere to the law. Certiorari is not an appellate remedy but a supervisory one, aimed at correcting jurisdictional errors or errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court referenced English law principles, noting that certiorari can be issued when a tribunal acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it emphasized that certiorari is not a tool for re-evaluating evidence or substituting the superior court's judgment for that of the tribunal. Jurisdictional Issues The High Court had held that the Election Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by extending the period of limitation for filing the election petition and allowing an amendment to the petition. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the election petition was filed within the prescribed time limit, and the amendment did not affect the substantive issues of the case. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's actions. Excess of Jurisdiction The High Court found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing issues not specifically pleaded and by declaring the appellant duly elected without sufficient evidence that he would have secured more votes but for the corrupt practices. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and within the scope of the pleadings. The Tribunal had found that the respondent's corrupt practices, such as procuring a bus to transport voters, materially affected the election outcome, justifying its decision to declare the appellant elected. Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record The High Court identified errors in the Tribunal's findings regarding polling delays, assistance from a government servant, and false election expense returns. The Supreme Court reviewed these findings and concluded that they were based on evidence and did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal's conclusions were supported by the evidence presented, and any disagreement with its findings was not a basis for certiorari. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of certiorari to quash the Election Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and based its findings on evidence presented during the proceedings. The Court emphasized the supervisory nature of certiorari, noting that it is not intended to serve as an appellate review of the tribunal's findings. The Court reiterated the principle that certiorari is appropriate only for jurisdictional errors or errors apparent on the face of the record, not for re-evaluating evidence or substituting the superior court's judgment for that of the tribunal. Final Determination: The appeal was allowed, and the writ issued by the High Court was vacated, upholding the Election Tribunal's decision to declare the appellant duly elected.
|
