MURLIDHAR Vs. KADAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected to the Madhya Bharat Legislative Assembly from the Morena Constituency at a bye -election. A petition was filed by the non -applicant Kadam Singh challenging the applicant's election. The Election Commission referred the petition to an Election Tribunal of which the opponent Shri Surajbhan is the Chairman. In this application under Art. 226, Constitution of India the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ or a direction calling upon the Tribunal to dismiss the election petition and also for quashing the proceedings before the Tribunal. The petition is somewhat prolix. The main grounds of challenge to the proceedings of Tribunal that emerge from petition are:

(2.) THAT the Representation of the People Act, 1951 not being an Act of the Madhya Bharat State Assembly, the Election Tribunal appointed under that Act has no jurisdiction to try any Election petition calling in question any election to the State Assembly, and That Mr. Pagnis who is one of the members of the Tribunal, is disqualified to sit on the Tribunal as his wife is a member of the Congress party and she was "in the last general election a candidate on the Congress ticket for Madhya Bharat Legislative Assembly

(3.) I am unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that Mr. Pagnis who is a very senior member of the Madhya Bharat Judicial service and is holding the post of a District & Sessions Judge is not competent to sit on the Tribunal because his wife is a member of the Congress and because she contested an election to the Assembly. It is not the allegation of the petitioner that Mrs. Pagnis was a candidate at the bye -election from the Morena Constituency. The petitioner's suggestion is that as he himself does not belong to the Congress party and as at the election the Congress nominee was defeated, Mr. Pagnis "due to his associations, affinity and relation with Shrimati Pagnis" would be unable to give an unbiased hearing to him. The petitioner has not stated any 'facts' or 'incidents' on which he has formed the impression that he may not be given an unbiased hearing.