9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to extend the period of limitation for presenting the election petition. 2. Authority of the Election Tribunal to allow amendments to the election petition. 3. Whether the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by deciding questions not pleaded and declaring the petitioner as duly elected. 4. Errors apparent on the face of the record concerning the commencement of polling, assistance from a government servant, and false return of election expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction to Extend the Period of Limitation: The High Court opined that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation for presenting the election petition. However, it was found that the election petition was dispatched by registered post on April 11, 1952, and received by the Election Commission on April 14, 1952, which was within the prescribed 14-day period from the publication of the notice of election expenses on March 31, 1952. The High Court's view that the date of publication should be included in the computation of the period was deemed unwarrantable and opposed to ordinary canons of construction. Thus, there was no question of the Tribunal entertaining the petition after the prescribed period. 2. Authority to Allow Amendments: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal lacked general power to allow amendments, except for supplying further particulars of corrupt practices as per Section 83(3) of the Representation of the People Act. However, the amendment in question was a modification in the prayer clause, adding an alternative prayer without changing the actual averments. The Tribunal granted the original prayer, making the amendment immaterial to the decision. Therefore, the Tribunal did not act without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment. 3. Acting in Excess of Jurisdiction: The High Court claimed the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on issues not pleaded and declaring the petitioner as duly elected without sufficient evidence. Specifically, the High Court pointed to the issue of hiring a motor bus for transporting voters. The Tribunal found that while hiring was not proved, procuring the bus was, and this was within the pleadings. The Tribunal's finding that the petitioner would have secured more votes but for the corrupt practices was based on evidence, including the transport of 60 voters by the bus. Thus, the Tribunal did not act in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record: The High Court identified three errors: - Commencement of Polling: The Tribunal found that polling at Booth No. 1 at Ajjampur commenced 25 minutes late, causing some voters to leave. The Tribunal discussed this in the context of whether the irregularity materially affected the election result, which was within its competence. - Assistance from a Government Servant: The Tribunal concluded that the respondent received assistance from Paramesshwarappa, a government servant, based on evidence of canvassing. The High Court's view that this did not constitute taking assistance was not upheld. - False Return of Election Expenses: The Tribunal found omissions in the respondent's return of election expenses, including petrol charges, hiring charges, and dinner expenses. The High Court's assertion that these findings were speculative was rejected, as the Tribunal's conclusions were based on evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the High Court misdirected itself on both facts and law in granting the writ of certiorari. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction, and its findings were based on evidence. The High Court's judgment was vacated, and the appeal was allowed without costs.
|
