HUKAM SINGH Vs. SURAJ BHAN ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the election held In March, 1972 to Delhi Metropolitan Council. Hukam Singh was declared duly elected from the Najafgarh Metropolitan Constituency, No. 22. Suraj Bhan. his closest rival, filed an election petition, being election petition No. 1 of 1972,in this Court challenging his election. Hukam Singh. thereafter gave notice to this Court of his intention to give evidence to prove that the election of Suraj Bhan would have been void if he had been the returned candidate. Along with the said notice, Hukam Singh filed treasury receipt showing his having deposited the required security and a statement said to be under Section 97 (2) of the Representation of People Act. 1951, herein called 'the Act'. Sura] Bhan. the election petitioner, has raised objections, inter alia, that the recrimination petition is liable to be dismissed for want of disclosure of a cause of action. Particulars under Section 83 of the Act. which ere required to be furnished, are said to be missing. As such, it has been prayed that 'Recrimination Petition' be dismissed. The question, therefore, arises: Whether the petition dated May 10, 1972, filed by Hukam Singh is a petition, which complies with the requirements of Section 97 of the Act.

(2.) Under Section 97 of the Act, when in his election petition. Suraj Bhan sought a declaration that he has been duly elected, the returned candidate (Hukam Singh) has been given an option to give evidence to prove that the election of Suraj Bhan would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election, provided Hukam Singh within fourteen days from the commencement of the trial, gives a notice of his intention to give such evidence along with the statement and particulars required by Section 83 of the Act. The statement and particulars, which he is required to file. in other words, have to be sort of an election petition itself, which has to be judged by the same standards, by which an election petition by the unsuccessful candidate is judged. Hukam Singh, in this case. has within 14 days given such a notice dated May 10, 1972. of his intention to give such evidence. It is also mentioned in the said notice that the "statement and particulars prescribed under Section 83 of the Act duly signed and verified by Hukam Singh" are enclosed. In the first two paragraphs of the said statement and particulars, referred to herein as "the recrimination petition". Hukam Singh has stated that Suraj Bhan has filed the election petition No. 1 of 1972 challenging his election, inter alia. on the grounds that there was improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes, reception of votes which were void and non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed and orders made thereunder from time to time. Claim of Suraj Bhan has also been mentioned to the effect that he received a majority of valid votes for which reason he has claimed the reliefs stated in the .election petition. Paras 3 and 4 of the recrimination petition, refer to the written statements which have been filed to the said election petition. Paragraph 5 has been divided into four parts. In the first part. reference has been made to paragraphs 13 to 16 of the election petition, which according to my order dated November 13, 1972, have not to be taken into consideration for framing issues in the case. The second part then deals with the allegations made in paragraph 18. I have already ordered the deletion of this paragraph except clause (c) thereof. In part 3, reference has been made to the allegations in the election petition that number of persons whose names are said to have been particularised in annexure 'A' to the election petition did not come for casting the votes, but some other persons impersonated for them and cast the votes. Reference is made to the allegation in the election petition to the effect that reception of these 145 votes was void. In part 4. reference is made to the al- legations in the election petition that In so far as Hukam Singh. the recriminating petitioner, was concerned, his election was said to have "been materially affected by the violation of the provisions" of the Act and the rules and orders framed thereunder.

(3.) In paragraph 6. the recriminating petitioner denies the facts, contentions and submissions set out in the election petition. In paragraph 7, reference has been made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal, AIR 1964 SC 1200. para 8 of the recrimination petition reads, as follows;