ABINASH PRAMANICK Vs. HAREKRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was a candidate for election to West Bengal Legislative Assembly from Balagarh Assembly Constituency. It was a constituency in the District of Hooghly which was reserved for electing a member of the scheduled caste community. The Petitioner lost to the Respondent No. 1 Harekrishna Das by a margin of 43 votes. The Petitioner challenges the election on various grounds and has asked for a declaration that he has been duly elected. His grievances are: (a) that the Respondent No. 1 or his election agent interfered with the free exercise of the electoral right of many of the Muslim voters in the constituency and (b) that there has been nonncompliance with some of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The other Respondents in this petition are Kartick Chandra Roy who was the third candidate in the election and N. Ganguly who was the returning officer. Kartick Chandra Roy did not appear at all. The returning officer has appeared. In the presence of counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent No. I and the returning officer, and on their suggestions the following issues were framed on May 22, 1967:

(2.) In para. 5 of the petition it is, inter alia, alleged that the Respondent No. 1 and/or his election agent and other persons with the consent of the Respondent No. 1 and/or his election agent interfered with the free exercise of the electoral right of many Muslim electors of villages Rampur, Taragul, Mahipalpur etc. of the said constituency by openly threatening that, unless they voted for the Respondent No. 1 who was a Congress candidate, they would be driven out of this country, thereby promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens on the ground of religion for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of the Respondent No. 1.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondents appearing before me invited me to consider the allegations aforesaid in the light of the provisions of Sec. 100(1)(b), 123(2) and 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Sec. 100(1)(b), inter alia, provides that subject to the provisions of Sub -section (2) if the High Court is of opinion that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent, or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. Sec. 123(2), inter alia, prescribes that for the purposes of the 1951 Act 'undue influence', that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right, shall be deemed to be a corrupt practice. Sec. 83(1)(b) lays down, inter alia, that an election petition shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the Petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the 'names of the parties' alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of each such practice.