1956 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to multiple reliefs in an election petition.
2. Timeliness of the election petition.
3. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to investigate allegations of illegal practices.
4. Interpretation of "circulars" under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
5. Impact of subsequent amendments to the Representation of the People Act on disqualification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Multiple Reliefs in an Election Petition:
The respondent filed an election petition seeking three reliefs: declaring the election wholly void, declaring the election of the returned candidates void, and finding that the candidates were guilty of corrupt and illegal practices. The returned candidates contested the petition on the grounds that the respondent was not entitled to claim more than one relief. However, the Division Bench held that the petitioner could seek alternative reliefs as specified in Section 84 of the Act.

2. Timeliness of the Election Petition:
The returned candidates argued that the petition was barred by time as it was not filed within the period prescribed by Rule 119(a). The Division Bench agreed in part, holding that the petition against the returned candidates for the relief of declaring their election void was out of time. However, the petition seeking a declaration that the election was wholly void was found to be within time.

3. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to Investigate Allegations of Illegal Practices:
The Tribunal framed an issue on whether it could investigate matters germane to prayers (a) and (c) despite a writ of prohibition on prayer (b). The Tribunal decided it could investigate these matters. The returned candidates filed petitions under Article 226 to restrain the Tribunal from investigating allegations relevant only to prayer (b). The High Court dismissed these petitions, stating that the trial of an election petition includes an enquiry into allegations of corrupt and illegal practices, not limited to the relief sought.

4. Interpretation of "Circulars" under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The Tribunal found Dr. John guilty of issuing circulars without the name and address of the printer, constituting an illegal practice under Section 125(3). The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the documents in question were indeed circulars. The term "circular" was interpreted as something addressed to a circle of persons, and the material letters were printed for distribution among voters.

5. Impact of Subsequent Amendments to the Representation of the People Act on Disqualification:
Dr. John argued that even if found guilty of the illegal practice, the finding would not entail disqualification due to a subsequent amendment to the Act. Section 72 of the Amending Act removed disqualification for acts that ceased to be illegal practices under the amended Act. The High Court did not decide on this issue, as it held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the charge under Section 125(3) and quashed the finding.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the portion of the Tribunal's order relating to the charge under Section 125(3), stating that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to investigate it. The writ appeal seeking prohibition was dismissed as the Tribunal had completed its enquiry. The order for costs against the appellant was set aside, with no order as to costs in the appeal.