1955 (5) TMI 22 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election petition was presented by a properly authorised person.
2. Whether there was sufficient cause for the presentation of the petition one day out of time.
3. Whether the petition was defective for non-joinder of certain parties as respondents.
4. Whether the petition is defective for want of proper verification.
5. Whether the petition was defective for vagueness of the particulars relating to the corrupt practices set out in Schedule A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Presentation by a Properly Authorised Person:
The Tribunal found in favor of the petitioners on this issue. The appellants attempted to attack the validity of the Tribunal's decision on the ground of bias of one of the Tribunal members, but this was previously determined against them in earlier proceedings, and the court declined to reopen the matter.

2. Limitation:
The petition was filed one day beyond the prescribed time. The Election Commission condoned the delay based on the petitioners' explanation, which was not found to be false. The Tribunal, however, reconsidered the matter and dismissed the petition for being time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal could not reconsider the Election Commission's decision to condone the delay, citing the precedent set in Dinabandhu v. Jadumoni. The Tribunal's conclusion on this point was therefore not maintained.

3. Joinder of Parties:
The Tribunal held that the petition was defective for non-joinder of three candidates who had withdrawn from the election. The Supreme Court found that these individuals were not necessary parties under section 82 of the Act, as interpreted in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on this point was also not maintained.

4. Verification:
The Tribunal found the petition defective due to improper verification, as it did not specify the date and did not refer to numbered paragraphs. The Supreme Court agreed that the petition was defective for not specifying the date but found that the lack of reference to numbered paragraphs was not a defect since the allegations were based on information and belief in their entirety. The Tribunal should have allowed the petitioners to rectify the defect rather than dismissing the petition outright.

5. Vagueness of Particulars of Corrupt Practices:
The Tribunal found the particulars in Schedule A to be vague and dismissed the petition on this ground. The Supreme Court agreed that most of the particulars were vague but held that the Tribunal should have called for better particulars or struck out the vague allegations and proceeded with the specific ones. The Supreme Court directed the case to be sent back for enquiry and trial with reference to specific allegations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition. The case was remanded for a fresh enquiry and trial limited to specific allegations, and the Tribunal was directed to call upon the petitioners to rectify the verification defect. The appeal was allowed without costs.