MOHD ILYAS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 7 contested the elec tion of the Municipal Board, Budaun, held in May, 1971 from Ward No. 6 which was a double-member constituency. Petitioner Mohd. Ilyas and respondent No. 3, Tribeni Sahai, were declared elected. Respondent No. 2, Kunwar Bahadur, filed an election petition before the District Judge, Budaun, challenging the election of the petitioner on several grounds. The petitioner filed a written statement and raised certain objec tions about the vagueness of the pleadings. Respondent No. 2 the election petitioner thereupon filed an amendment application for amending the election petition. The District Judge, Budaun, who constituted the Election Tribunal allowed the amendments sought for by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 17th April, 1972. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the Election Tribunal by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion.

(2.) SRI S. N. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that under the provisions of the U. P. Municipa lities Act, 1916, the Election Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction to allow amend ment of the election petition. The impugn ed order of the Election Tribunal, accord ing to the learned Counsel has been passed in excess of its jurisdiction.

(3.) IN our opinion the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of plaint in a suit apply to the amendment of an election petition under the Act. There is no provision under the U. P. Municipalities Act or the rules framed thereunder excluding the applica tion of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel has fail ed to point out any provision of the Act or the rules thereunder which may be in consistent with the provision for amendment contained in Order VI, Rule 17. It is no doubt true that while allowing the amend ment the Tribunal has no power to allow an election petitioner to introduce by way of amendment a new ground of challenge which may not have been taken in the petition. Section 20 provides limitation of thirty days for questioning the election of returned candidate. The ground or grounds on which the election of a returned candi date is questioned must be set forth in the election petition which is required to be filed within thirty days of the date of an nouncement of the result of the election. If a ground of attack is not raised in the election petition within thirty days, the Election Tribunal cannot allow any such amendment after the expiry of the period of limitation provided in Section 20 of the Act. If, however, the ground of challenge is rais ed, the Tribunal may allow amendment of the petition for giving further particulars of any corrupt practice or further material facts in support of the grounds already taken in the petition. As regards the giving of full particulars of corrupt practice S. 20 of the Act itself lays down that the elec tion petitioner should give as full a state ment as possible of the names of the par ties alleged to have committed corrupt prac tices and the date and place of commission of each such corrupt practice. The use of the words including as full a statement as pos sible" in Section 20 is significant. The Legislature contemplated that in certain circumstances it may not be possible to give a full statement of the names of parties al leged to have committed corrupt practice and date, time and place at the time of fil ing the petition, hence, the expression "as full a statement as possible" was used in Section 20, which indicates the legislative intent, that further particulars may be given later on. In our opinion, an Election Tri bunal constituted under the U. P. Munici palities Act has full power to allow amend ment of election petition. We are support ed in our view by the decision of the Sup reme Court in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Trilold Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444.