RASHMI PARIHAR Vs. GANGARAM BANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNPRECEDENTED it is in the annals of our Election Law. The question indeed is, whether Section 116 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for short, the 'Act', can, and does, resolve the controversy.

(2.) FIRST , a brief resume of facts precipitating the issue whose Sui generis character made impossible accelerated hearing on the question. On 17-4-1985, the petitioner filed the instant election petition calling in question election of respondent No.1, Gangaram Bandil who had been declared elected on 9th March, 1985 from No. 16, 'Lashkar East' constituency of the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh. In the course of hearing of the election petition, several witnesses were examined by the petitioner in support of her case, inter alia, that the said respondent as also others as his agents and workers were guilty of corrupt practices of which the most objecti0nable one being publishing and distributing a scandalous hand -bill maligning the petitioner, her mother and her husband and impairing thereby her election prospects. She closed her evidence on 19 -1 -198; and thereupon, steps were taken by the said respondent by filing his list of witnesses on 30 -1 -1987 to contest the case set up by the petitioner in pleadings as also in evidence. Let it be mentioned at this stage that though other unsuccessful candidates were also impleaded, except Dharti Pakad Madanlal, arrayed as respondent No.3, others did not appear and did not oppose the petition. Indeed, third respondent also did not oppose the petition and supported, to some extent petitioner's case. He appeared on several dates and though he cross -examined some of the election -petitioner's witnesses and also the first respondent, he did that to support merely his own case raising challenge to the election symbol of the election petitioner. On 6 -2 -1987, first respondent Gangaram Bandil examined himself and his cross -examination by the third respondent was also completed on the same date. However, election -petitioners counsel continued cross -examination of the first respondent on several dates. On 9 -2 -1987, on the prayer of third respondent, he was allowed to file his list of witnesses on or before 2nd March, 1987, but that list never came. On 28 -4 -1987, cross -examination of respondent No.1 was completed and he was discharged and for evidence of his other witnesses, the case was adjourned to 1st July, 1987. On that date, his counsel informed the Court that first respondent Gangaram Bandil had expired on 2nd June, 1987.

(3.) THE new Chapter in the case opened on 6 -7 -1987 when the question was considered as to whether the election petition had abated because counsel for the election -petitioner had submitted on the preceding date that the position was otherwise. However, I took the view that the provision of Section 116 of the Act are to be complied with and ordered accordingly notice to be published in the Official Gazette in terms of the provisions of Section 116 calling upon persons legally entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased respondent to make necessary application in that regard in accordance with the statutory provision. On 3 -9 -1987, it was noted that the notice ordered, was published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra on 21st of August, 1987.