RAJAGOPAL Vs. M OPPILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, at the election of the President of Keeramangalam Town panchayat, was elected by 1348 votes as against 1191 votes secured by the first respondent. On the election petition filed by the first respondent, the Tribunal found that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices, inasmuch as he had used a taxi, treated voters and prevented canvassing voters supporting the first

(2.) FOR establishing corrupt practice by use of a taxi, the first respondent had examined himself and two others, one of whom was a taxi owner and the other, an observer. As to the other items of corrupt practice, the bulk of evidence is that provided by the first respondent himself. The Tribunal accepted his evidence and in so doing it has observed in more than one place in its order that the appellant had failed to discredit the evidence of the first respondent. Though we are of the view that the discussion and the finding in relation to corrupt practices are quite unsatisfactory, we shall proceed on the basis that the finding arrived at by the tribunal is factual and cannot be scrutinised as in an appeal.

(3.) BUT the point raised before us for the appellant is that, merely because corrupt practices were proved, it did not automatically follow that they materially affected the result of the election, and that, unless that fact is established apart from the corrupt practices, the election of the appellant could not be void. We thing that this point is well founded. Rule 11 of the rules relating to Panchayat election disputes is specific on that matter. By clause (b) it is provided that, if in the opinion of the election Court the election of a returned candidate has been procured or induced or the result of the election has been materially affected by any of the corrupt practices named in the clause, the election of the returned candidate shall be void. The election of a returned candidate can be made void by showing that it was procured or induced or by the corrupt practices the result of the election had been materially affected. These three things are separate and independent and they cannot be held to mean the same thing. Establishing corrupt practices is not by itself sufficient to make the election void. It must be shown that the election of the returned candidate has been procured or induced or the result of the election has been materially affected by the corrupt practices. As held in vashist Narain v. Devchandra, the words 'the result of the election has been materially affected' indicate that the result should not be judged by the mere increase or decrease in the total number of votes secured by the returned candidate, but by proof of the fact that the wasted votes would have been distributed in such a manner between the contesting candidates as would have brought about the defeat of the returned candidate. In other words, what is to be established, besides corrupt practices, is that but for such corrupt practices the returned candidate would have suffered a defeat.