SAIYID ALIMUDDIN Vs. SAEED AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave granted by this Court on 24-1-1955, on a limited point hereinafter mentioned against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Meerut, dated 10-10-l954, whereby the Tribunal set aside the election of the appellant as Chairman of the Town Area Committee. Phalaoda, District Meerut, and declared the respondent as the duly elected Chairman.

(2.) Under the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 the Chairman of a Town Area Committee is elected directly by the electorates of the Town Area at an election held simultaneously with the general election of the members of the Committee. The election of the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Bhalaoda, District Meerut, was held on 18-10-1953. The appellant and the respondent were the only contesting candidates. On counting of votes the appellant was found to have secured 1,980 votes as against 1,280 votes polled by the respondent. The appellant was accordingly declared to have been elected as the Chairman. On 11- 11- 1954, the present respondent presented an election petition under sub-s. (4-a) of S. 8-A of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914, as amended, challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The present appellant contested that petition. He denied and refuted the various grounds on which his election was challenged. On the allegations made against the appellant the Tribunal held (i) that the appellant had got 19 votes recorded in the names of persons who were not present at Phalaoda at the time when the voting took place, (ii) that the appellant had procured by personation the vote in the name of one Srimati Hafizam who was dead at the time of the election and (iii) that the appellant had procured one Ramji Lal, M. L. A., a Harijan leader, to address a meeting of Harijans in favour of the appellant's candidature wherein threats were held out to Harijans that if they did not vote for the appellant they would be ejected from their lands. In the result, the Tribunal held that the election of the appellant as Chairman was void and, consequently, the Tribunal set his election aside. Farther, the Tribunal by the same order declared the respondent to have been duly elected.

(3.) On 16-11-1954, the appellant filed before this Court a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. Special leave was granted by this Court on 24-1-1955, limited to ground of appeal No. (ix) of the petition, namely, "That in the circumstances of the present case the order of the Tribunal declaring the respondent to be duly, elected is illegal." In view of this limited nature of the leave the appellant has to accept the position that the three charges have been brought home to him and that his election has been properly set aside. The only point available to him is that the order of the Tribunal declaring the respondent to be duly elected was illegal.