KAMAL BASU Vs. PURNENDU SEKHAR NASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an election appeal at the instance of an unsuccessful candidate whose attempt to get the election of one of the successful candidates declared void and set aside and to get himself elected in his place failed before the Election Tribunal. In this Court too, the Appellant, can have no better luck and his appeal must fail, particularly in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunja Thevar and Ors., 1958 AIR(SC) 687 That decision stares the Appellant in the face and its authority concludes his present appeal.

(2.) With his characteristic fairness Mr. Acharyya, Counsel for the Appellant, conceded the above position before us, but he prayed for a Certificate to enable him to take up the matter to the Supreme Court and to take his chance there to re-open the matter and persuade their Lordships to grant relief to his client on certain consideration which, according to him, were not noticed in the earlier authority. Even that prayer, however, is not entertainable by this Bench and it is bound to fail on that ground.

(3.) The disputed election concerns the double-member Diamond Harbour Parliamentary Constituency. One seat was reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the other was a general seat. At the last General Election, held in March, 1957, the Appellant was a candidate from the said Constituency for the House of People. So were the Respondents. There was another candidate Sushil Kumar Sardar whose name appeared in the list of contesting candidates prepared on February 4, 1957, and duly published under Section 38 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but who retired from contest on the 13th following by giving appropriate notice under Section 55A(2) of the Act. Of the said five candidates, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Sushil Kumar Sardar belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were eventually declared elected to the general and the reserved seat respectively with 245,266 votes and 247,785 votes as against the Appellant's 244,763 votes and Respondent No. 3's 236,192 votes, the other candidate Sushil Kumar Sadar having retired from the contest before the poll, as stated above.