A C JOSE Vs. SIVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This election appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was a candidate for election to "No. 70 - Parur Assembly Constituency" in Kerala but was not elected. Six candidates contested the said election which was held on May 19, 1982, out of whom the first respondent (Sivan Pillai), who was a candidate of the Communist Party of India, and the appellant were the two principal contestants. The result of the election was announced on May 20, 1982 in which the first respondent was declared elected having secured 30450 votes as against 30327 votes secured by the appellant. Thus, the first respondent secured 123 more votes than the appellant. Of the 30450 votes, 11268 were cast manually, according to the conventional method provided in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short, to be referred to as the 'Rules') made under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'), and 19182 votes were cast by means of electronic machines (for short, to be referred to as 'voting machines'). This was done in pursuance of the direction issued by the Election Commission of India (for facility to be referred to as the 'Commission') by virtue of a notification published in the Kerala Gazette on 13-5-82. The said notification was purported to have been made under Art. 324 of the Constitution of India, and has been extracted on pages 3 to 5 of the Judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same having regard to the point of law that we have to decide in the instant case.

(2.) It may be mentioned that prior to issuing the notification the Commission had sought the sanction of the Government of India which was however refused. As mentioned above, the votes by the mechanical process were cast in 50 out of the 84 polling stations.

(3.) The trial Court upheld the validity of voting by machine and held that the respondent was duly elected to the Assembly, seat. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.