ALLAH BUX Vs. RATAN LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, as amended by Act No. 27 of 1956, (hereinafter called the Act), against the judgment of the Election Tribunal of Bijnor, allowing an election petition filed by Ratan Lal Jain, (hereinafter called the respondent).

(2.) The dispute arises out of an election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from Constituency No. 51, known as Afzalgarh Constituency, situate in the district of Bijnor. Six persons sought the election from the above constituency. The polling took place on 6-3-1957 and as a result of the counting of votes, which took place on 10-3-1957, Allah Bux, (hereinafter called the appellant), was declared as the duly elected candidate. Ratan Lal Jain, respondent in this appeal, decided to challenge the election of the appellant Allah Bux and sent an election petition, within the time allowed by law, to the Election Commission. The Election Commission sent it for trial to the District Judge of Bijnor who was appointed as the Election Tribunal to try and dispose of the election petition. The respondent had impleaded the appellant and one Banwari Lal as opposite parties to the election petition. The appellant was impleaded as the duly elected Candidate and Banwari Lal as one of the candidates, who had committed certain corrupt practices. In the election petition three grounds were taken, namely, that the appellant was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly in view of the Provisions of Section 7 (d) of the Act, that the appellant, along with his relations, workers, supporters and agents, had committed corrupt practices of undue influence, bribery and systematic appeal to the electors to vote for him on the ground of his community and religion. The third charge was that Banwari Lal, Opposite Party in the election petition, had been bribed by the appellant in order to induce Banwari Lal to stand as a candidate at the election. Both the appellant and Banwari Lal contested the election petition, but on 31-7-1957, the learned counsel for the respondent, Ratan Lal Jain, made a statement before the Tribunal that he did not Propose to press the grounds relating to the commission of the different kinds of corrupt practices and that he would confine his case to the first ground, mentioned above. On this statement being made, it became unnecessary to continue Banwari Lal as a party to the election petition, and the Election Tribunal consequently passed an order the same day striking off the name of Banwari Lal from the array of opposite parties in the election petition, and Banwari Lal was awarded his costs, which he had incurred till that date, The election Petition then proceeded only against the appellant and only on the first ground.

(3.) The ground is set out in paragraph 4(a) of the election petition and it is to the effect that the appellant was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the U. P. Legislative Assembly, because he, along with his brothers Ali Husain and Kifaya-tullah and his uncle Inayutullah and other members of the family, jointly carried on business in the name of Messrs. Azamatullah Inayatullab, and the business was of purchasing at auctions timber and bamboos from the forest department of the U. P. Government and supplying sleepers, prepared out of the timber, to the U. P. Government. The appellant was said, to have a share, as well as interest, in the contract for the supply of sleepers to the Govt, and it was pleaded that the appellant was disqualified for being chosen to the U. P. Legislative Assembly because of the provisions of Section 7(d) of the Act.