9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in presenting the election petition. 2. Defective verification of the election petition. 3. Allegations of corrupt practices by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Presenting the Election Petition: The appellant contended that the election petition was presented out of time as it was delivered to the post office on 3rd April 1952 but reached the Election Commission on 5th April 1952, a day beyond the prescribed period. The Election Commission, however, condoned the delay by an order dated 2nd July 1952, exercising its discretion under the proviso to section 85 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant argued that the Election Commission's order was invalid as it was passed suo motu without an application from the petitioner. The Court held that the proviso to section 85 does not require a formal application for condonation of delay and that the Election Commission's discretion in this matter is final and not open to challenge. The Court also noted that the delay of one day was minimal and would have been condoned even under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the contention regarding the delay was rejected. 2. Defective Verification of the Election Petition: The verification of the petition did not comply with the requirements of section 83(1) of the Act and Order VI, rule 15(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, as it did not specify which paragraphs were verified on personal knowledge and which on information received. The Election Commission suggested that the petitioner apply to the Election Tribunal for amending the verification, which was done on 24th July 1952. The appellant argued that the petition should have been dismissed for defective verification under section 85. The Court held that the Election Tribunal has the discretion under section 90(4) of the Act to dismiss a petition for non-compliance with sections 81, 83, or 117, but it chose not to do so in this case. The Tribunal's order to allow the amendment of the verification was within its jurisdiction and not subject to interference. 3. Allegations of Corrupt Practices by the Appellant: The Election Tribunal found that three corrupt practices were established against the appellant: - Inducing the third respondent to withdraw from the election on a promise to get him employment, violating section 123(1) of the Act. - Using a bus to convey electors to polling booths, in breach of section 123(6) of the Act. - Obtaining assistance from Extra Departmental Agents and Presidents of Choukidari Union, considered Government servants, for canvassing, contravening section 123(8) of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the findings regarding the first two corrupt practices were based on evidence and could not be characterized as perverse. The Court does not interfere with factual findings of Election Tribunals unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Court found the findings of the Election Tribunal to be supported by evidence and thus upheld them. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Election Tribunal's decision to set aside the appellant's election. The objections regarding the delay in presenting the petition and defective verification were overruled, and the findings of corrupt practices were upheld as being supported by evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
