INDER LAL Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1, Lal Singh on several grounds. The appellant is an elector in the Chittorgarh Constituency and the election led to the present petition was held in March, 1957 for the Rajasthan Legislative Assemble from the said constituency. As a result of the election, respondent No. 1 was declared to have been duly elected on March 11, 1957. He secured 7272 votes whereas respondent No. 2 Laxman Singh s/o Maharawal Sir Bijey Singh secured 7261 votes and respondent No. 3 Chhogalal secured 569 votes. The appellant's case was that respondent No. 1's election was invalid inasmuch as he had practised corrupt practices at the said election. According to the appellant, respondent No. 1 procured or abetted or attempted to procure either by himself or by his agents or by other persons with his connivance or that of his agents the reception of invalid votes and as a result of the said votes, the result of the Election had been materially affected. The appellant stated in detail the manner in which the said invalid votes had been procured. The appellant further pleaded that respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons with the connivance of respondent No. 1 or that of his agents published such statements of facts (Exts. 3 and 6) which were false and which they either believed to be false or did not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of respondent No. 2 which, were likely to prejudice the prospects of respondent No. 2 at the election. It is on these two grounds that the appellant claimed a declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 was invalid. He also claimed that respondent No. 2 should be declared to have been validly elected.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement supporting the petition but he did not appear before the Tribunal at the hearing. Respondent No. 3 did not appear at all, while respondent No. 1 denied all the allegations made by the appellant and contended that the election petition filed by the appellant should be dismissed.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed as many as 26 issues. In substance, it held that the several allegations made by the appellant in respect of the receipt of invalid votes had not been proved and so the first ground on which respondent No. 1's election was challenged by the appellant, could not succeed. In regard to the second ground on which respondent No. 1's election was challenged by the appellant, the Tribunal held that Ext. 3 had been published by the agent of respondent No. 1 but not with his express consent and in regard to Ext. 6, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had been published by respondent No. 1's agent. That is how even the second ground made by the appellant disputing the validity of respondent No. 1's election did not succeed. In the result, the election petition was dismissed.