KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J:- We appellant is a voter on the electoral roll of Karnal Assembly Constituency. He challenged the election held on March 11, 1972, for the membership of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from Kamal Constituency. At that election 16 candidates filed their nominations which were declared as valid nominations. Out of these, eight candidates withdrew their candidature. The respondent and seven others were the contesting candidates. After the polling on March 11, 1972, counting took place on March 12, 1972 and the respondent was declared elected having polled 17719 votes, the other candidates Shanti Devi polled 16857 votes, Balwan Singh 1602 votes, Piyare Lal 1243 votes, Kali Ram 1203 votes, Kalu Ram 616 votes, Radhey Sham 542 votes and Kashmira Singh 180 votes.

(2.) The appellant filed a petition on April 24, 1972, challenging the election of the respondent Ram Lal on the allegations, inter alia, that the respondent, his election agent and other persons with his consent, had committed various corrupt practices detailed in the petition- as falling within the meaning of sub-ss. (1) to (7) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act-hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. For the purposes of this appeal, the various allegations made against the respondent in the election petition are not relevant. It is only necessary to state that certain allegations of corrupt practices were made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition against Piyare Lal, Kali Ram and Kalu Ram. The petition was verified by the appellant as required under the Rules. The appellant also filed an affidavit In which he stated that paragraphs 11 and 12 among other paragraphs were based on information received and were believed to be true. The respondent filed a written statement on September 25, 1972, contesting the allegations of various corrupt practices made by the appellant and further raised some preliminary objections one of which was that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act inasmuch as the persons against whom allegations of corrupt practice have been made such as Piyare Lal, Kali Ram and Kalu Ram had not been joined as respondents to the petition. The appellant, however, averred in reply that Ram Lal respondent alone was required to be made a party and it was not necessary to implead any other candidate or candidates as the al1egations of corrupt practice were levelled against the successful candidate and not against other candidates. The learned Judge who tried the petition, after hearing the petitioner in person and the respondent's counsel framed the following two issues:

(3.) It was conceded by the respondent's counsel that there was no imputation of any corrupt practice against Shanti Devi, Balwan Singh and Radhey Sham and accordingly there was no necessity to implead them. It was, however, urged that Comrade Ram Piare and the remaining four candidates, namely, Piyare Lal, Kali Ram, Kalu Ram and Kashmira Singh, having been charged with committing corrupt practices set out in the aforesaid paragraphs were necessary parties. The learned Judge held that Comrade Ram Piare had withdrawn his candidature before the prescribed date, therefore, he was not a necessary party to the petition, nor was there any allegation against him that he was prevailed upon to withdraw by bribery, receipt of gratification or reward which would constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 of the Act. Even in respect of Kashmira Singh the allegation that he was persuaded to retire from the contest and sit silent in the election it he could not help the respondent could not amount to corrupt practice. The Court, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition made allegations of corrupt practices against Piyare Lal, Kali Ram and Kalu Ram and In view of these allegations failure to implead them as parties to the petition contravened the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Act. In this view the election petition was dismissed. Against this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal before us.