BALBIR TYAGI Vs. A DHANWANTI CHANDELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was elected as Municipal Councilor from Ward No. 116, Vikaspuri East, Delhi in the municipal election held in April, 2007, results whereof were published on 9 th April, 2007. The respondent no.1 filed Election Petition under Sections 15 & 17 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act?) challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant had indulged in corrupt practices and a prayer was made that the election of the appellant be declared null and void and in his place the respondent no.1 be declared as elected. This Election Petition was premised on three grounds namely:

(2.) As noted above, issue no.1 pertains to alleged appointment of Mr. Raj Pal, an employee of Horticulture Department, MCD as an election agent of the appellant. Before we discuss the findings of the learned Trial Court and that of the learned single Judge on this issue, we would like to refer to the relevant provisions. In the light of the evidence, it is to be discerned as to whether a case of corrupt practice by the appellant was made out or not. Section 17 of the Act provides the grounds for declaring the election to be void including the ground of corrupt practices which is reproduced below:-

(3.) What constitutes corrupt practices is stipulated in Rule 92 of the Delhi Municipal (Election of Councillors) Rules and the same reads as under:-