PANNA Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition of unsuccessful candidate Panna Lal Syngal for declaring void the election of Mukhtiar Singh respondent (the candidate returned to the Lok sabha from the Rohtak Parliamentary Constituency in the general election held in march, 1971, on the allegation of commission of certain corrupt practices), following two preliminary objections were raised in the respondent's written statement:-

(2.) BY my order dated May 27, 1971, I permitted the Petitioner to file better particulars of the alleged corrupt practices within four weeks from that day after serving an advance copy thereof on the counsel for the respondent, who might file his further written statement in respect of the better particulars within two weeks of the receipt of the advance copy. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity allowed to him. The time allowed for the purpose expired on June 25, 1971, when the Court was closed for summer vacation. The Court reopened on July 12, 1971. Neither any statement of better particulars nor any application for extension of time was filed by the petitioner on the reopening day. Even when the case came up for hearing before Mahajan, J. , on July 16, 1971, neither any statement was filed, nor any prayer foe extension of time was made. The learned Judge adjourned the case for hearing of arguments by me on the preliminary issue arising out of the first preliminary objection raised by the respondent as counsel for the parties represented before his Lordship that argument on that issue had already been partly heard by me. I do not want to say anything about the correctness of the said representation made by counsel except this that there had been no hearing of the case before me since after the framing of the preliminary issue on May 27, 1971. The order of Mahajan, J. , was brought to my notice on July 19, 1971, and I directed the case to be fixed for hearing on July 21, 1971. On that day, Mr. N. C. Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made in somewhat halfhearted oral prayer for adjournment of the case on payment of costs to the other side to enable his client to collect the material for filing better particulars and for filing the same. Mr. Jain submitted that the petitioner had not been able to do the needful so far, as he has been busy in organizing certain demonstrations in Delhi, and could not find time to collect the requisite information which had to be incorporated in the statement of better particulars. This in my opinion is no valid ground for the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to do the needful. Section 86 (5) of the Act authorizes this Court to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amplified for ensuring a fair and effective trail of the petition. Sub-section (6) of Section 86 stated that the trail of an election petition shall so far as practicable, consistently with the interest of justice, be continued form day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trail beyond the following day to be necessary. Sub-section (7) enjoins a duty on this Court to try an election petition as expeditiously possible.

(3.) IT was at the request of the counsel for the petitioner that four weeks was allowed to him for filing better particulars as it was represented that he would need time to collect the necessary information and to prepare the better statement. Since four weeks ended during the vacation, he could at best have availed of the time up to the reopening day. In the circumstances already referred to by me, it appears that the petitioner is not taking the trail of this petition very seriously in so far as the matters sought to be covered by better particulars are concerned. Petitioner should normally have collected all the information necessary to be given in the election petition in support of the allegation of corrupt practices before filing the petition. If on any account he was not able to do so, he should have availed of the time allowed to him by me on May 27, 1971, in the interest of justice. He has miserably failed to avail of that opportunity. No sufficient cause has been shown for his failure to do the needful within time. Even the excuse offered orally by the counsel for the petitioner is no supported by any affidavit. The alleged reason for the delay is, to say the least, wholly unjustifiable. The election petition was filed on April 26, 1971. About three months have already passed since then. The trial of the petition has normally to be concluded within six months as required by sub-section (7) of Section 86. The petitioner does not appear to attach any importance to the effective prosecution of the petition. I am therefore, not inclined to grant any further time to the petitioner for amplifying the particulars of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition. The Oral prayer for extension of time is therefore, declined.