HARINDER SINGH Vs. S KAMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was one of the candidates who stood for election to the Legislative Assembly of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union from the Faridkot Constituency in the General Elections held in 1954. He secured the largest number of votes, and was declared duly elected. The result was notified in the Official Gazette on February 27, 1954, and, the return of the election expenses was published therein on May 2, 1954. On May 18, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, No. XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and therein he prayed that the election of the appellant might be declared void on the ground that he and his agents had committed various corrupt and illegal practices, of which particulars were given. The appellant filed a written statement denying these allegations. He therein raised the further contention that the election petition had not been presented within the time limited by law, and was therefore liable to be dismissed. Rule 119, which prescribes the period within which election petitions have to be filed, runs, so far as it is material, as follows:

(2.) The plea put forward by the appellant in his written statement based on R. 119 (a) was that whatever might have been the reason therefor, the fact was that the petition had not been filed "not later than fourteen days" from the publication of the return of the election expenses, which was on May 2, 1954 and that it was therefore not presented within the time prescribed. The Tribunal overruled this plea on the ground that under R. 2 (6) of the Election Rules, the General Clauses Act, X of 1897, was applicable in interpreting them, and that under S. 10 of that Act, the election petition was presented within the time allowed by R. 119 (a). On the merits, the Tribunal held that of the grounds put forward in the Election Petition, one and only one had been substantiated, and that was that the appellant had employed for payment, in connection with his election, 25 persons in addition to the number of persons allowed under R. 118 read along Sch. VI thereto, and had thereby committed the major corrupt practice mentioned in S. 123 (7) of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly declared the election void under S. 100 (2)(b) of the Act. It also observed that on its finding aforesaid, the appellant had incurred the disqualification enacted in Ss.140 (1) (a) and 140 (2) of the Act. Against this decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, two contentions have been pressed before us:(1) that the election petition was presented beyond the time prescribed by R. 119 (a), and should have been dismissed under S. 90 (a); and should have been dismissed under S. 90 (4) of the Act; and (2) that on the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the conclusion that R. 118 had been contravened does not follow and is erroneous.