SHIVAMURTHY SWAMI INAMDAR VEERABHADRAPPA VEERAPPA Vs. CHANBASANGOUDA HANUMANTHAGOUDA PATIL:AGADI SANGANNA ANDANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (in short 'the Act) ' from the decision of the high court of Mysore in Election Petitions Nos. 3 and 6 of 1967. These petitions were tried together and decided by a common judgment. A good portion of the evidence led in the case is common to both the petitions. Therefore we shall proceed to deal with these appeals together.

(2.) On 13/01/1967, notifications were issued calling for the election of one member for the Lok Sabha from the Koppal constituency as well as eight members to the Mysore Assembly from the eight assembly constituencies included. in that Parliamentary constituency. One of those assembly constituencies was the Yelburga constituency in the District of Raichur. The last date for presenting the nominations was 19/01/1967. The scrutiny of the nominations took place on 21/01/1967 and the poll was held on 19/02/1967. Both in the Koppal Lok Sabha constituency as well as in the Yelburga assembly constituency, the main contest was between the congress candidates and the candidates of Lok Seva Sangh. The appellant in Civil No. 980 of 1968 was the candidate of 1. S. S. for the Lok sabha Koppal constituency and the 1st respondent in that appeal Sanganna was the congress nominee. The appellant in Civil No. 981 of 1968 was the candidate for the L. S. S. in the Yelburga assembly constituency and the 1st respondent therein C. H. Patil was the Congress nominee. The Congress candidates succeeded by a large majority both in the Parliamentary constituency as well as in the Assembly constituency. The results of the elections were declared on 24/02/1967. Their elections were challenged by the nominees of the L. S. S. on various grounds. So far as the respondent in Civil No. 980 of 1968 is concerned it was said that he was disqualified for being a candidate both under Article 102 of the Constitution aswell as under S. 9 (a) of the Act. So far as the 1st respondent in Civil appeal No. 981 of 1968, is concerned, it was said that he was disqualified for being a candidate under Article 191 of the Constitution and S. 9 (a) of the Act, and further it was alleged that both of them were guilty of offences under S. 123 (3) and 123 (7) of the Act. It was further said that the 1st respondent in Civil No. 980 of 1968 was also guilty of an offence under S. 123 (1) of the Act. The High court of Mysore which tried these election petitions rejected the allegations made on behalf of the appellants and dismissed the election petitions with costs. These appeals are directed against that decision.

(3.) It will be convenient if we take up first the common grounds alleged again the returned candidates. Thereafter we shall take up the grounds that are special to each of them.