NIRBHAYADAS GANGARAM Vs. RAMESHWAR AGNIBHOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act by one Nirbhayadas who is an elector in the double-member constituency of Harda, District Hoshangabad. The respondent Rameshwar Agnibhoj is the husband of Smt. Gulab Bai, who has been returned as a member to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the said constituency at an election held on 11-3-1957. The petitioner has filed an election petition (Annexure-B) before the Election Commission of India under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for an order declaring the election of Salt, Gulab Bai as well as of the other candidate Shri Laxnian Rao Naysk as void. The petition was registered as petition No. 334 of 1957 and has been referred by the Election Commission of India for trial to the District Judge, Hoshangabad who has been constituted as Election Tribunal for deciding the same. The grounds on which the election of Gulab Bai is challenged are set forth in para 7 of the petition (Annexure-B). Sub-paras (c) and (d) of para 7 pertain to the petitioner and his daughter and they alone are material for the present case.

(2.) Notices to parties of the formation or the Tribunal were issued on 13-7-1957, and 26-7-1957 was fixed for appearance of the parties before the Tribunal. The non-applicant served a notice dated 25-8-1957 (Annexure-A) on the petitioner stating that the petitioner had wrongly, maliciously and falsely dragged him and his daughter in sub-paras (c) and (d) of para 7 of the election petition and threatening the petitioner with prosecution for defamation and action in a civil court for damages to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The notice winds up with a warning to the petitioner that the non-applicant and his people are Balai by caste and that if in spite of the notice, the petitioner writes, utters, expresses or intreprets their caste to be something else than 'Balai' it would give rise to fresh liability tor prosecution and action in a civil court.

(3.) The petitioner contends that this notice threatened him with a view to compel him to withdraw or not to press a plea which is most material to his case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that this act of the opposite party amounts to interi'erenee with administration of justice and, therefore, constitutes contempt of the Election Tribunal which, being a court subordinate to the High Court, is punishable by this court.