PRATAP SINGH Vs. HARDWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Pratap Singh was declared elected to the Haryana State Assembly from Bahadurgarh constituency in the first midterm elections which took place on May 14, 1968. There were three contestants from this constituency, the appellant Pratap Singh being the Congress Party candidate, the respondent Hardwari Lal being the Swatantra Party candidate and the independent candidate Ram Narain, being the third candidate. The appellant obtained 23,714 votes and the respondent obtained 19,279 votes and the appellant was declared duly elected to the Assembly. It is not necessary to refer to the third candidate Ram Narain as he is not before us in these proceedings.

(2.) On an election petition filed by the respondent herein for setting aside the election of the appellant, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the appellant's election by its judgment dated January 21, 1969 and this appeal, under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the said decision.

(3.) In the election petition before the High Court, the respondent had challenged the election of the appellant on various grounds. As the election of the appellant has been set aside by the High Court only on the findings recorded under issue No. 3, it is not really necessary to elaborately advert to the other grounds alleged by the respondent in his election petition. It is enough to state that the respondent alleged that the Change of date of poll from May 12, 1968 to May 14, 1968 was done with a view to give undue advantage to the Congress candidate (the appellant herein) and that it materially affected the result of the election and that the Police and Executive Officers of the District acted in a partial manner and helped the Congress candidate against the respondent and thus jeopardized his chances of winning the election and that huge amounts were spent by the appellant during the election days and such expenditure far exceeded the maximum limits laid down in S. 77 of the Act. The High Court found that these allegations had not been substantiated and, as such, recorded findings against the respondent.