BINOD KANUNGO Vs. RAJ KRUSHNA BOSE BISWANATH NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal dated 15 -11 -54, refusing to declare the election void, refusing also to declare the election of Opp. Party No. 1 void and refusing to declare the Petitioner as being entitled to be declared as a returned candidate.

(2.) THE Petitioner and Opp. Parties 1 and 2 were candidates for election from Kesnagar constituency of the Orissa State Legislative Assembly in the last election. The Petitioner polled 11,500 votes and Opp. Party No. 1 polled 13,800 votes and Opp. Party No. 2 polled 2,829 votes. The Petitioner filed an election petition on the ground that Opp. Party. No. 1 committed several major and minor corrupt practices as well as certain illegal practices in the said election. The Petitioner also challenged the election on the ground that several Government Officers not only proposed and seconded the candidature of Opp. Paty No. 1 in the election, but also they gave their active support to Opp. Party No. 1. He also alleged that the Opp. Party No. 1 took recourse to undue influence and many electors were threatened and were compelled to vote in favour of Opp. Party No. 1. It was also alleged by the Petitioner that Opp. Party No. 1 did not maintain the election account and that he made false election return in material particulars, the details of which were given.

(3.) ON appeal by Opp. Party No. 1 to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the said order and observed in its judgment that in Case the finding as to when the Opp. Party became a candidate would have been given, different consideration would have arisen. The Supreme Court set, aside the order of the Election Tribunal and sent back the case to the Election Commission of India to get the case reheard by the same Tribunal. The Supreme Court also gave a direction that as is incumbent in law contained in Section 99 of the Peoples Representation Act, the Tribunal should give a finding on each and every corrupt practice, minor and major, and the illegal practice alleged in the petition and as to whether such practice had or had not been committed. It was also held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that though a Govt. servant Can propose or second a candidate, the assistance Can only go so far as such assistance amounts to a right to vote and laid down that in case a candidate secured the assistance of a Govt. servant in any other way than to vote, the same would amount to a corrupt practice.