MOHANSINGH LAXMANSINGHJI Vs. BHANWARLAL NATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by an unsuccessful candidate who filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the State legislative Assembly from the Sitamau Assembly Constituency in the last general election held on 1-3-1957.

(2.) THE appellant and the four respondents were the contesting candidates at the election. Some of the candidates whose nomination papers were accepted withdrew their nomination on the appointed day, namely, 4-2-1957, and accordingly no ballot boxes were kept for them in the polling stations. One of them was Ram Ratan, who, according to the appellant, submitted his notice of withdrawal to the Returning Officer after 3 P. M. The case of the appellant was that acceptance of his notice of withdrawal after 3 P. M. was against the provisions of the Act and materially affected the result of the election. He also alleged commission of certain corrupt practices by respondent no. 1 or his agents, or by other persons with his consent, on the basis of which he prayed for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate was void and that he (appellant) was duly elected.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 denied that Ram Ratan presented his notice of withdrawal after 3 P. M. , and. submitted that even if he had done so, he should be deemed to have duly retired from the contest, if not to have withdrawn from it. Alternatively, he pleaded that Ram Ratan was a necessary party and as he-was not impleaded as a respondent, the election petition was liable to be dismissed. He further alleged that the petition was also liable to be dismissed as it was not accompanied by a valid receipt of the security deposit. The allegations of the corrupt practices were denied by him.