SUBHASH ARYA Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of Shri Charanjit Singh (the respondent) the returned candidate to the Lok Sabha from South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency at the last general elections to the Parliamentary Constituencies held in January, 1980 has been called in question in this election petition by Shri Subhash Arya alleged to be an elector registered as such at Sr. No. 17, Part No. 387 (15/73) of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.. The 'polling for the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency took place on Jan. 3, 1980 and counting took place on January 6 and January 7, 1980. The result of the election was declared on January 7, 1980 by the Returning Officer and as a result thereof the respondent was declared elected as a Member of the House of People i.e. Lok Sabha on January 7, 1980. This election petition tinder Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act,1951 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed on February 20, 1980 for declaring the election of the respondent void on the grounds specified under Section 100(1 )(a), 100(1) (d)(i), 100(1 )(d)(iii) and 100(1 )(d)(iv) of the Act. Summons for the appearance of the respondent and for filing the written statement were issued. The written statement was filed. The replication was also filed. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were framed on May 7, 1980:

(2.) Section 81 of the Act provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candinate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of the election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. The explanation says that elector means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not. A plea is taken in the election petition that .the petitioner is an ,elector registered as such at Sr.No. 17 Part No.387(15/73)of.,the, South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner further claims that being an elector in the constituency in dispute he is comptent to maintain and prosecute the election petition under Section 81 of the Act,, , The respondent has merely denied in the written statement that the petitioner Is an elector registered as such at Sr. No. 17 Part No. 387(15/73) of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.

(3.) The petitioner summoned an official from the office of the Chief Electoral Office, Delhi in support of this issue. Public Witness PW1 Sh. Bachan Singh, a Lower Division Clerk of the office of the Chief Electoral Office, Delhi deposed that he had .brought electoral roll maintained by the Chief Electoral Office, Delhi in respect -of the Parliamentary Constituency South Delhi for the election held in January, 1980; that he had before him Part-387 of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency; that Sh. Subhash Arya S/o Sh. Acharaj Lal is entered in the electoral roll at Sr. No. 17 and that the earlier entry was Subhash Chand and" this was corrected by a corrigendum. The witness also produced the certified copy of the extract from the electoral roll (incorrect) which is Ex, Public Witness PW1/1, the certified copy of the corrigenda from the electoral roll duly corrected which is Ex. Public Witness PWI/2 and the printed copy of Part 387 of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency which is Ex.PW1/3. A combind reading of the extract from the electoral roll Ex. Public Witness PW1/1 and the corrigenda Public Witness PWI/2 leads to the irrestible conclusion that Sh. Subhas Arya S/o Sh. Acharaj Lal is an elector of South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency and his name is entered at Sr. No. 17, Part No. 387(15/73) of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. Mr. M.C. Bhandare, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the identity of the petitioner with the elector at Sr. No. 17 is not established as the petitioner did not enter the witness box to say so. He further points out that the House No. at Sr. No. 17 given in the electoral roll isJ-7/52-A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi whereas the address of the petitioner in the election petition is given as resident ofJ-7/53-A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. This argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is devoid of any merit. The petitioner had made a definite averment in the election petition that he is an elector registered as such at Sr. No. 17, Part No. 387(15/73) of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. The name of the elector in the electoral roll given as Subhash Arya S/o Sh. Acharaj Lal and the same corresponds with the petitioner in the election petition. There is thus identity of the petitioner as an elector as established by Ex. Public Witness PW1/1 and Public Witness PW1/2. It is not the case of the respondent that J-7/52-A Rajouri Garden is not the house No./address of the petitioner when his name was registered as an elector in the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. Merely the change of residence, if any, of an elector who was entitled to vote at the election, at the time of filing of the election petition will not make him incompetent to present the election petition. The requirement of Section 81 of the Act is that the election petition calling in question any election may be presented, interalia, by any elector at such election. The elector means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates. Sh. Subhash Arya S/o Sh. Acharaj Lal is an elector registered as such at Sr. No. 17, Part No. 387(15/73) of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency and is thus competent to present and maintain this election petition under Section 81 of the Act. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 2