TNAGAPPA Vs. T CBASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It will be necessary for a proper consideration of the arguments advanced in the case to set out in some detail the facts and circumstances which have led up to, and relevant for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner and the respondents were duly nominated candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Tarikere Constituency at the general elections held in this State on 4-1-1952. Respondents 5 to 9 withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time and as a result only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested the elections. In the elections the petitioner secured 8093 votes as against 8059, 6239, 1644 and 1152 votes obtained by respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The Returning Officer thereupon declared the petitioner as the successful candidate in the election and the said declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-2-1952 as per the provisions of Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner lodged his election expenses with the necessary declaration with the Returning Officer and the same was published in the Mysore Gazette on 31-3-1952. The petitioner was sworn in as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and thereafter began to discharge his duties as such member.

(2.) The 1st respondent preferred an election petition to the Election Commission for obtaining a declaration that the election of the petitioner was void and that he himself had been duly elected. It will be pertinent at this stage to mention that in this petition the 1st respondent did not seek for a declaration that the election was wholly void. The said petition was received by the Election Commission on 14-4-1952 and came up for hearing before the Election Tribunal on 25-10-1952. The 1st Respondent then filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. before the Election Tribunal for the amendment of the election petition presented by him to the Election Commission in the following manner:

(3.) The Tribunal, on the averments in the pleadings, framed as many as 27 issues and, after recording the evidence adduced and hearing the arguments advanced for the parties, pronounced their order on 15-1-1953. The Tribunal in their order unanimously found Issues 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 in favour of the petitioner but on Issues 1, 5, 6. 11, 12 and 14 they were divided, the majority finding these issues against the petitioner. It will be useful and even necessary to note down the said issues. They are: (1) Has there been infringement of the rules relating to the time of commencement of poll by reason of the fact that polling at Booth No. 1 for Ajjampur fixed at Ajjam-pur to take place at 8 A. M. did not really commence until about half an hour later as alleged in para 4 of the petition? (5) Did the 1st respondent (Petitioner before us) hire and procure a motor bus which was a service bus running between Tarikere and Hiriyur, belonging to one Ahmed Jan, as alleged in para 1 of the list of particulars and thereby commit the corrupt practice referred to in it? (6) Did the 1st respondent (petitioner before us) take the assistance of a number of Government servants to further the prospects of his election as alleged in para 2 of the list of particulars? (II) Is the return of election expenses lodged by the 1st respondent (petitioner before us) false in material particulars & has the 1st respondent (petitioner) omitted to include in the return of election Expenses, expenses incurred by him in connection with the election which would easily exceed the sanctioned limit of Rs. 5,000/- as per particulars stated in para 1 of the list of particulars. (12) Has the election of the 1st respondent (petitioner) been procured and induced by the said corrupt practices with the result that the election has been materially affected? (14) Would the petitioner (1st respondent) have obtained a majority of votes had it not been for the aforesaid corrupt and illegal practices on the part of the first respondent? The majority of the members of the Tribunal consisting of Sri. B. R. Ramalingaiah and Sri Mir Iqbal Hussain, on the strength of their findings on these issues, declared the election of the petitioner void and the 1st respondent duly elected while the learned District Judge Sri C. V. Chan-nappa, who was the other Member of the Tribunal, came to a different conclusion and dismissed the petition of the 1st respondent. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction or order as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case to quash the proceedings of the Election Tribunal. The petitioner in support of his prayer has urged the following grounds: