BANARSI DAS Vs. SUMER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of Deshpande, J. dated November 27, 1972, dismissing the writ petition field by Banarsi Dass Garg, appellant herein, assailing the orders dated September 18, 1971 and October 29, 1971, passed by the District Judge, Delhi in election petition No. 6 of 1971 by which objections of the appellant as to maintainability of the petition were dismissed.

(2.) Elections to the Delhi Municipal Corporation were held on May 2, 1971. From Ward No. 51, Sumer Chand respondent No. 1 in this appeal and Banarsi Dass Garg, appellant herein, contested the election along with the other respondents to this appeal. The appellant secured 3974 valid votes as against 3882 valid votes secured by respondent No. 1. The appellant was declared duly elected. Respondent No. 1 challenged this election by election petition No. 6 of 1971 before the District Judge under section 15 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter called "the Corporation Act"), amongst others, on the ground that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices which were mentioned in para 9 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the petition. Respondent No. 1 also prayed that after declaring the election of the appellant to be void, respondent No. 1 be declared to be duly elected under Section 19(1) (c) of the Corporation Act. The appellant in reply contended that particulars of these corrupt practices envisaged by rule 80 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1962 (hereafter called "the Rules") framed under the Act were not stated in the petition and that the verification of the petition and its annexures was also not in accordance with sub-rule (2) of rule 80 of the Rules. The petition, for these reasons, it was contended, deserved to be dismissed under rule 81. Alternatively, the appellant further pleaded that if his election was declared to be void, he was entitled to show that respondent No. 1 was also guilty of corrupt practices and he could not be granted the declaration that he was duly elected as prayed for by him in the petition.

(3.) The learned District Judge, by his order dated September 18, 1971, held that there was no non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 15(4), but respondent No. 1 should furnish additional particulars of the corrupt practices urged by him in para 9(b)(c) and (d). He also held that the appellant was not entitled to urge and prove in reply that the respondent was guilty of corrupt practices. In compliance with the order requiring additional particulars, respondent No. 1 filed some further particulars but on objection they were found to be still incomplete. By order dated October 29, 1971, the learned District Judge directed the respondent to furnish still further particulars. Aggrieved from these two orders the appellant filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal. The following points were canvassed before the learned single Judge in support of the prayer that the orders be quashed:-