HIRA SINGH Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In tTic general elections of 1983 to the Metropolitan Council, Delhi, respondent No. 1 Hari Ram was returned from Narela, Constituency No. 22. His close rival petitioner Hira Singh was defeated by a margin of 238 votes. In this election petition, he prays that (i) the election of the returned candidate be declared void, and (ii) that he be declared to have been duly elected under sec. 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein the Act), His grounds arc :

(2.) Respondent No. 1 has denied all the allegations. Though at one time, he intened to file a recrimination under sec. 97 of the Act, vide his reply dated 16-3-1983, yet he seems to have changed his mind later on. What are the consequences of want of recrimination were also discussed before me, but I need not talk about them as that does not seem material at the present moment. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder. The parties were examined under Order 10 Rule I Civil Procedure Code Thirty-two issue were framed. Out of them, the following first nine issues were taken up in the first instance:

(3.) Before I proceed to deal with the issues, I wish to make one observation. The election to the Metropolitan Council and the Delhi Municipal Corporation were held simultaneously on 5-2-1983 and the results were announced on 6-2-1983 and notified on 8-2-1983, by the same team of offucers. Section 9 of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966 provides that the provisions of Part I and Parts III to XT of the Act, and the Rules and Orders made thereunder for the time being in force shall apply in relation to an election to the Metropolitan Council as they apply in relation to an election to the legislative Assembly of a State subject to such modifications, as the. 'Central Government may after consultation with the Election Commission by order direct. Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on the other hand, provides that subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government, the Director of Elections shall conduct tile election of the members of the Corporation. Thus, there is a complete control of the Central Government over the conduct of elections to the Corporation, while in case of the elections to the Metropolitan Council the Election Commission of India lias such control. Even (hough the procedure prescribed for the two elections is more of less the same, the holding of the two elections together under the control of these two different authorities appears to me to hurt the idea of free election and it 13 at least some time difficult to see the two elections in isolation. Indeed, the petitioner has attempted to show discrepancies in these elections and how one has affected the other. Here two separate boxes were provided and the allegation is that ballot papers cast in a wrong box were rejected or accepted so as to favour the first respondent. But, be that as it may, Mr. Bansal contends that we are not concerned in this election petition as to what happended in the elections to the Corporation and we have to confine ourselves to the validity of the elections to the Council. For the present, I will bear this division in mind. So, the issues. ISSUES 1 and 2 :