KHWAJA MAZHAR UDDIN Vs. RAMA SHANKAR AMIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sri Khwaja Mazharuddin and opposite party No. 1, Sri Rama Shankar Amist, were candidates for the Presidentship of the Municipal Board, Hamirpur, at the elections held in 1953. The. applicant secured 963 votes while the opposite party No. 1 obtained 956 votes, and the applicant was declared duly elected President of the Municipal Board. An election petition was filed by the opposite party No. 1 challenging the validity of the petitioner's election on a number of grounds alleging corrupt practice and false personation in the election. The matter was referred to the District Judge, Jhansi, as the Election Tribunal, and the "District Judge, by his order dated 14-5-1955, declared the election invalid, and further declared a casual vacancy as having been created and directed the District Magistrate to proceed with fresh elections. A number of grounds were urged in the petition challenging the election of the petitioner. But the Election Tribunal has set aside the election on three grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal has held that some time before the election the applicant had got repaired and whitewashed a temple which was situate on the land belonging, to him and had allowed the Hindu public to worship the idol installed in the temple. By so doing the applicant had influenced the Hindu voters to vote in his favour and had committed corrupt practice under Section 28, Municipalities Act. The Tribunal has secondly held that during the election period the applicant doubled his contribution to the Ramlila Committee and thereby influenced the Hindu public to vote in his favour. Lastly, it was held by the Tribunal that in respect of two voters of Ward No. 1, namely No. 23, Putti son of Mahmud Khan, and No. 24, Bashir Mohammad son of Inayat Mohammad, the petitioner got others to vote for. them. The contention of the applicant is that the incidents on which the petitioner has been held to have committed corrupt practice do not amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 28, and that there is no finding by the Tribunal of tine facts which would constitute corrupt practice under Section 28, Municipalities Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points urged by the petitioner it may be necessary, first, to refer to the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on these points. As regards the charge against the applicant that he induced the Hindu public to vote in his favour by allowing them to worship the idol installed in the temple situate in hie land, the finding of the Tribunal is as follows:

(3.) Coming to the question of payment of subscription to the Bamlila Committee, it is not a case where the applicant in a particular solitary year paid the contribution. He has been paying contribution in past also. The only allegation against him is that he doubled the contribution in the year 1953, and he had done the same once earlier in 1947 during the period of elections. Prom that the finding of the Tribunal is that the applicant has committed corrupt practice. The Tribunal, has remarked in this connection that it is significant to note that the amount of subscription was definitely increased in the election years 1947 and 1953. He has further held that in the present case the increase in subscription in the election year 1953 could not have been with any other object In-view, and that except the election there was no other reason for increasing the subscription. He has further said :