R M SESHADRI Vs. G VASANTHA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, 28th May, 1968, by which the election of the appellant Seshadri has, been set aside. The election in question was to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates Constituency. That constituency consisted of 19498 ,votes and the total votes polled were 12,153. Since the voting was by a single transferable vote, three out of the five candidates were eliminated at different counts with the result that their votes were transferred to the second person named by the elector on the ballot. At the final count the appellant Seshadri received ,5643 votes and and G. Vasantha Pai (his nearest rival) who is the first respondent in the appeal received 5388 votes. Seshadri was, therefore, elected by a majority of 255 votes.

(2.) The election petition was filed by G. Vasantha Pai to question the election of Seshadri on many grounds. Only one ground prevailed, namely, that he had employed cars which had been hired or procured for the conveyance of the voters to the polling booths which numbered 73 in this constituency. The other charges were numerous but they need not be mentioned here because in our opinion this charge has been substantiated. It may be mentioned that Seshadri filed a petition of recrimination but it was dismissed because he failed to furnish security required under the Act. Later he corrected this mistake but the petition was not accepted because it was held to be delayed.

(3.) The learned Judge who heard the case held that instead of Seshadri, Vasantha Pai deserved to be declared elected under the law. In this appeal, therefore, Seshadri contends that the decision in his respect was erroneous and in the alternative that in any event Vasantha Pai could not be declared as the successful candidate. We shall deal with these two points separately. It may further be mentioned that in the original order passed by the learned Judge he had not named Seshadri as guilty of corrupt practice. By a subsequent order he reviewed his previous order and gave a declaration. This point also will require to be considered in this judgment.