9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (5) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etting aside the election on various allegations. The petition was filed on the 19th April, 1952, before the Election Commission at Delhi and was admittedly one day beyond the prescribed time. The Election Commission admitted the petition after condoning the delay under the proviso to section 85 of the Act and thereupon constituted a Tribunal for trial of the petition at Akola by notifications dated the 30th July, 1952, and 22nd September 1952. In due course respondent No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement on the 6th October, 1952, and the petitioners filed their reply thereto on the 16th October, 1952. With reference to these pleadings, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it was advisable to frame certain preliminary issues and to dispose of the same before entering on the trial of the case on its merits. Accordingly, nine preliminary issues were framed. These nine issues substantially cover the following questions : (1) Whether the election petition was presented by a properly authorised person. (2) Whether there was sufficient cause for presentation of the petition one day out of time. (3) Whether the petition was defective for non-joinder of certain parties as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, however, to permit this finding of fact to be reopened in this appeal on special leave, irrespective of the question whether the burden of proof was rightly laid on the petitioners. 3. The only points, therefore, that have been argued before us are whether the view taken by the Tribunal with reference to the following questions, viz (1) limitation, (2) joinder of parties, (3) verification, and (4) specification of particulars of corrupt practices in Schedule A attached to the petition, is correct, and if so, whether the same entitled dismissal of the petition. The questions may be taken up one after the other. LIMITATION :- As stated above, the petition was filed on the 19th April, 1952, admittedly one day beyond time. On the 28th April, 1952, the petitioners filed also an application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for the same. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof the circumstances under which the delay is said to have occurred were set out as follows : 3. The applicants were under the belief that Notice under Rule 113 of the Rules framed under the above Act was published on 5th April, 1952, in the official Gazette of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the powers vested, in it under section 90(4) of the Act. In this view it went into the merits of the explanation furnished and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were negligent and that the delay, even of one day, could not be condoned. It accordingly held that the petition was liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Now, apart from the merits of the sufficiency of the cause for delay, the question as to whether, notwithstanding the condonation of the delay by the Election Commission, it was open to a Tribunal to reconsider the matter by virtue of section 90(4) of the Act, is now covered by the decision of this Court reported in Dinabandhu v. Jadumoni [1955] 1 SCR 140 . It was therein held that it was not open to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in such a case. The conclusion of the Tribunal, therefore, on this point cannot be maintained. The learned Attorney-General attempted to argue that the decision of this Court referred to above was obiter as regards the legal point and required further consideration. But we were not prepared to permit that question to be reopened. We were also not satisfied that there was any adequate reason for the Tribunal to interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttle this controversy, we would prefer to base the decision not on any meticulous construction of the phrase at the election but on a comprehensive consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and of the rules framed thereunder and of the purpose, if any, of the requirement under section 82 as to the joinder of parties other than the returned candidate. We are, however, relieved from this, since it has been decided in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh [1954]1SCR892 that even if any of the necessary parties other than the returned candidate has not been impleaded, the petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine on that sole ground but that it is a matter to be taken into consideration at the appropriate stage with reference to the final result of the case. In view of this ruling the decision of the Tribunal on this point also cannot be maintained. VERIFICATION : The view taken by the Tribunal on this question is based on section 83(1) of the Act which is as follows : An election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by virtue of Order XIX, rule 3, is specifically required to be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove (except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted, provided that the grounds thereof are stated). But these is not - and in the nature of things there cannot be - any such limitation for pleadings. Hence it became necessary in the verification of a pleading to demarcate clearly between the two. The allegations in the petition in this case purport to be based only on information. Since the verification clauses refer to the entirety of the petition and the attached schedule, absence of enumeration of the various paragraphs therein as having been based on information cannot be considered to be a defect. The verifications are accordingly defective only as regards the requirements of the dates thereof. The question is whether the petition is liable to dismissal on this ground. Though there may be cases where the date of the pleading and the verification may be relevant and important, it would be a wrong exercise of discretionary power to dismiss an application on the sole ground of absence of date of ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The poster of the rival candidate affixed on the post-office within the premises of the Berar Oil Industries was removed and stolen away. 3. Respondent No. 1 caused groups and sections of castes and communities, such as Bohara, Lohars, Marwaries, Muslims, Rajasthanies, Bhangies, to issue appeals stating that resolutions were passed for voting for respondent No. 1, coercing the voters by threats, etc. to vote for respondent No. 1 and openly canvassing on communal and cast lines and using undue influence. 4. Issuing pamphlets and handbills without names of printer or publisher. 5. At the time of counting votes in Polling Station No. 53, several folded bundles amounting to about 20 in number, of ballot papers were found in the ballot box of respondent No. 1, when it was opened for counting votes. This was noted by the Returning Officer. Each bundle consisted three or more than three ballot papers, folded together. Obviously each of the bundle of these ballot papers were put in the ballot box one person, as the ballot papers put in the ballot box by different voters could not automatically fold themselves into a compact bundle in the ballot box. The ballot papers is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of corrupt practices specified in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and not others. He accordingly contended that, by implication, the Tribunal was not prepared to hold that items mentioned in paragraphs 1, 3, 9 and 10 were vague. He urged that at least these four items must be taken not to be vague and that there is no reason why the petitioners should not have been called upon to amend the schedule by furnishing better particulars as to the rest. He further urged that, at any rate, they were entitled to a trial in respect of those four items of corrupt practices. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the appellants that the items set out in paragraphs 3, 9 and 10 are not vague. There is no specification therein of the requisite details which the Act in terms requires. Section 83(2) requires not only what may reasonably be considered full particulars having regard to the nature of each allegation, but enjoins in terms that the following particulars should also be given. (1) Names of the parties alleged to have committed the corrupt or illegal practice. (2) The date of the commission of each such corrupt or illegal practice. (3) The place of comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal practice. (c) Paras 1 and 2 of the petition allege that there was no free election by reason of general bribery and undue influence exercised by and on behalf of respondent No. 1. Similarly the allegation in para 2 is that the coercion was the result of manipulation by or at the instance of respondent No. 1. Thus these allegations must be supported by giving the necessary particulars regarding the names, date and place of commission of corrupt or illegal practice alleged. The allegations in paras 1 and 2 of the petition are allegations of corrupt and illegal practice within the meaning of sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Act, and are not allegations of a general character which do not implicate the candidate personally. (d) Further by way of example, para 1 of the schedule, no names, date of the alleged practices are given. Same is the case with the allegations in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10. (e) It is for the petitioners to satisfy the Election Commission and the Tribunal that the particulars given are according to law. This has not been done and the petition, therefore, ought to be dismissed on this ground . 12. Now the order-sheet of the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction that the particulars as to the alleged corrupt practices were vague, said as follows : The petitioners are prepared to give further particulars if the Tribunal is pleased to permit under section 83(3) of the Representation of the People Act . 14. This reply was filed on the 16th October, 1952, which is the very date on which the first of the above orders extracted from the order-sheet was passed. It is also true that the order dated the 17th January, 1953, shows that the respondent No. 1 at one stage, indicated an intention himself to ask for particulars. But in a matter of this kind the primary responsibility for furnishing full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices and to file a petition in full compliance with section 83(2) of the Act was on the petitioners. While undoubtedly the Tribunal has, in our opinion, taken all too narrow a view of their function in dealing with the various alleged defects in the petition and in treating them as sufficient for dismissal, the petitioners are not absolved from their duty to comply, of their own accord, with the requirements of section 83(2) of the Act and to remove the defects when opportunity was available. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not have dismissed the application. It should have exercised its powers and called for better particulars. On non-compliance therewith, it should have ordered a striking out of such of the charges which remained vague and called upon the petitioners to substantiate the allegations in respect of the those which were reasonably specific. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the tribunal in dismissing the petition outright was clearly erroneous. Notwithstanding this opinion we would, in the normal course, not have felt called upon to interfere in this case under article 136 after this lapse of time and at the instance of persons like the appellants before us who are mere voters having no direct personal interest in the result of the election. 16. But there is one other circumstances in this case which we have noticed and which we feel we ought not to overlook, though in the course of the arguments the same was not brought to our notice. Paragraphs 6(a), (b) and (c) of the application for setting aside the election sets out certain grounds of alleged disqualification of the returned candidate to stand for the election. It is also stated therein that objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the performance of services undertaken by the State Government Madhya Pradesh. The income derived from these contracts by the respondent No. 1 are noted in the private accounts of the respondent No. 1 and their details are shown in the profit and loss statements filed with income-tax return of the respondent No. 1 for the relevant year and current year. The sales and other details of the Matru-bhumi concern are noted in the private accounts of the respondent No. 1. These objections were summarily overruled by the Returning Officer, without any inquiry or any reason . 17. These allegation, if made out with such further details as may be necessary, might well prove serious and bring about the setting aside of the election of the returned candidate. The 1st respondent in answer to these allegations states as follows : It is denied that there was any improper acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 and in particular it is denied that any of the allegations made in paragraph 6(a), (b) (c) of the petition constitute in law a disqualifications of section 7 of the Representation of the People Act. Without prejudice to this it is submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
