9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the election petition under Rule 119(a) of the Representation of the People Act. 2. Alleged contravention of Rule 118 regarding employment for payment in connection with the election. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Timeliness of the Election Petition The appellant contended that the election petition was not presented within the time prescribed by Rule 119(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that an election petition must be filed "not later than fourteen days" from the date of publication of the return of election expenses. The return was published on May 2, 1954, making the last date for filing May 16, 1954, which was a Sunday, followed by a public holiday on May 17, 1954. Consequently, the petition was filed on May 18, 1954. The Election Commission admitted the petition, considering the holidays, under the interpretation that the petition was filed within the permissible period as per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. This section allows an act to be done on the next working day if the last day of the prescribed period falls on a holiday. The appellant argued that the phrase "not later than fourteen days" is more peremptory than "within a prescribed period," and thus Section 10 of the General Clauses Act should not apply. However, the Supreme Court held that both expressions mean the same thing and that the General Clauses Act is applicable. The court emphasized that the objective of Section 10 is to enable acts to be done on the next working day if the last day falls on a holiday. Therefore, the petition filed on May 18, 1954, was deemed timely. Issue 2: Contravention of Rule 118 The Tribunal found that the appellant had employed 25 persons in connection with his election, exceeding the number allowed under Rule 118 read with Schedule VI, thus committing a major corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Act. The appellant argued that these individuals were already in his employment and were not specifically engaged for election purposes. The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 118 does not require special employment for election purposes; it suffices if a person is employed in connection with the election. However, the employment must be for payment. If regular staff members perform election work in addition to their normal duties without extra payment, it does not constitute employment in connection with the election under Rule 118. Conversely, if they are taken out of their normal duties and put on election work, it would amount to employment for election purposes. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the 25 individuals were long-term employees of the appellant and were not paid extra for election work. There was no evidence that they were relieved of their usual duties to work exclusively on the election. The Supreme Court concluded that without such a finding, Rule 118 was not violated. The evidence suggested that the staff performed election work outside office hours, indicating that their election work was in addition to their normal duties. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Election Tribunal's order and dismissing the election petition. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs, as each had succeeded on one issue and failed on another. Appeal allowed.
|
