SHREEWANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. BAIDYANATH PANJIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed an election petition before the High Court under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for setting aside the election of the respondent in the election held in April 26 1970 to the Bihar Legislature Council from Darbhanga Local Authorities' Constituency and for declaring the appellant as the duly elected member from the aforesaid constituency. The High Court dismissed the petition and this appeal is directed against that Order.

(2.) The election from the constituency was notified on March 26, 1970:the last date for filing nominations was April 2, 1970 (3 p. m.). The appellant and respondents 1 to 5 in the election petition filed their nomination papers and they were all found valid after scrutiny. Respondent No. 5 in the election petition withdrew her candidature. Thereafter the contest was between the appellant and respondents 1 to 4. The poll took place on 26-4-70 and the result of the poll was announced on 27-4-1970. The Appellant secured 60 votes and Respondent No. 1 86 (Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 secured 27, 6, 6 votes respectively) and so Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was declared elected.

(3.) The appellant alleged in the election petition that on April 2, 1970, only 145 persons were entered as voters in electoral roll of the constituency, which comprised the Municipalities and notified area committees specified in paragraph 4 of the election petition and that the number of voters of Jainagar Notified Area Committee, which was also included in this constituency, was only 15. He further alleged that the Government of Bihar published notification No. 2308/LSC on March 27, 1970, in pursuance to an order of the Minister for Local Self-Government made on March 28, 1970, under Section 389 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, by which he appointed 31 new commissioners to the Jainagar Notified Area Committee and dropped 6 out of the 15 existing commissioners and that the names of the 31 commissioners have been entered in the electoral roll of the constituency. The appellant urged that the Minister for Self-Government acted mala fide in passing the Order as the Minister was on inimical terms with him and that he wanted the respondent who belonged to his political party to win in the election by appointing men belonging to his political party as commissioners of the area committee in question. It was also alleged in the petition that the election was vitiated by corrupt practices, namely, that the respondent gave bribes to 3 voters and offered bribes to 6 other voters and that he canvassed votes on the basis of his caste from among the voters belonging to his caste.