C M STEPHEN Vs. ATAL BEHARI VAJPAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will be treated as in continuation of the order of April 22, 1980 determining the preliminary issues and it is, therefore, unnecessary to re-state the substance of the pleadings. The material controversy raised in the election petition is the subject matter of issue No. 7. Issue No. 7

(2.) Shri Madan Lal Khurana (for short Shri Khurana) was returned at the election of 1977 to the Metropolitan Council for Delhi constituted under the provisions of Delhi Administration Act, 1966. He was appointed as an Executive Councillor by a notification dated June 24, 1977, Ex. P-5, published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary of Friday, June 24, 1977. He was functioning as an Executive Councillor at the relevant time of the last Parliamentary election. Section 40 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (here after referred to as the Act) permits a candidate at an election to appoint in the prescribed manner any one person other than himself to be his election agent and then any such appointment is made, notice of the appointment has to be given in the prescribed manner to the returning officer. Rule 12 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 prescribes the procedure for appointment of an election agent. It provides that any appointment of an election agent under Section 40 shall be made in Form 8 and the notice of such appointment shall be given by forwarding the same in duplicate to the returning officer who shall return one copy thereof to the election agent after affixing thereon his seal and signatures in token of his approval of the appointment. There is no doubt that Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, the returned candidate (for short the respondent) made the appointment of Shri Khurana as the election agent in the prescribed manner. The certified copy of Form 8 in the records of the Returning Officer, New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency is Ex. P-2 and its English translation is Ex. P-2/T. It contains the nomination by the Respondent of Shri Khurana as the election agent and the acceptance of Shri Khurana. The original letter of the Returning Officer, New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency, Ex. P-3, establishes that the appli- cation of the respondent in Form 8 was presented to the Returning Officer on December 31, 1979 and a copy was returned thereof. In para 8 (a) of the election petition, the allegation is that the respondent obtained the assistance ,of Shri Khurana, a person belonging to the class of gazetted officers in the service of the Government, for the furtherance of his prospects of the election (i) by appointing him as an election agent, and (ii) by involving him in the conduct of election compaign. In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement, there is a specific denial of the allegation that Shri Khurana was a person belonging to the class of gazetted officers in the service of the Government but the respondent has omitted to traverse the other material allegation in sub para, (a) of para 8 of the election petition. It is also not disputed even at the Bar that the respondent had appointed Shri Khurana as his election agent at the election and this appointment is valid in law.

(3.) xx xx xx