INAYATULLAH KHAN Vs. DIWANCHAND MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an election in the Sehore double-member constituency to the Legisla-tive Assembly of this State. The election took place on 25th february, 1957 and the results were declared on 1st March, 1957. Originally, six persons had offered to contest the two seats, but one of them (Amarchand)withdrew, leaving five in the field. Of these Umraosingh and Mannulal contested the reserved seat, while the remaining three, Inayatullah, Mahajan, and Nandlal contested the general seat. As a result of the poll declared on 1st March, the appellant Inayatullah was declared elected to the general seat while Umraosingh was also declared elected to the reserved seat. The result of the poll was as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_60_TLMPH0_1958Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE election was questioned by Diwan-chand Mahajan alone. One of the other candidates Mannulal in his reply raised a ground that at Sawa-da polling station some of the voting papers which were not inserted but were found lying scattered on top of the ballot boxes were put inside them by the presiding officer and were counted. We mention this point at this stage because we shall have to consider it in the sequel.

(3.) THE petition of Mahajan is a long document and runs into several sheets. It alleged inter alia the facts on which the election was challenged, and some of these grounds have been upheld by the Tribunal. When the appeal of Inayatullah was admitted, notices were caused to be issued to Mahajan, Nandlal and amarchand. The appeal did not make Umraosingh and Mannulal parties. Mahajan in his turn filed a cross-objection challenging the election on grounds, which were decided against him by the Tribunal, and incidentally he made an application for joining Umraosingh and Mannulal as parties for the purposes of his cross-objection only. We heard in the beginning two preliminary objections raised by the rival parries, mahajan contending that the appeal as filed without joining Umraosingh and mannulal was defective and incompetent, and Inayatullah and Umraosingh contending that the cross-objection was not tenable under the Representation of the People Act. We propose to decide these objections at this stage.