LAWS(P&H)-1962-11-40

NET RAM Vs. INDRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS

Decided On November 28, 1962
NET RAM Appellant
V/S
Indraj Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Net Ram, sitting member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, challenges two orders of the Election Tribunal, Rohtak, passed on 10th of September, 1962 and 28th of September, 1962. By the earlier order of 10th of September, 1962, the Election Tribunal declined to strike off paragraph 8 of the amended petition. The subsequent order of 28th of September, 1962 rejected another application of the Petitioner under Order 15, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of one of the issues in the petition as a preliminary issue.

(2.) THE Petitioner was declared elected in the last General Elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Hissar Saddar Constituency. An election petition to challenge the election of the Petitioner was made by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Indraj Singh and Raghubir Singh under Sections 60 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, (hereinafter called the Act;. In paragraph 8 of the original petition it was alleged that the Petitioner Net Ram had been guilty of the corrupt practice of obtaining assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of his election, from persons in the service of the Government. It was further averred in this paragraph that Net Ram "persuaded some members of the Armed Forces of the Union to take leave and to canvass for him in the families of the members of the Armed Forces, in various villages of the constituency. One Shri Ram Chander Dalai who was a sepoy then serving in some infantry battalion of the Indian Army" had been asked to take leave before the polling started in the constituency and actually canvassed for him in various villages. Ram Chander is also stated to have been appointed a polling agent by Net Ram Petitioner at village Mohabbatpur polling station No. 3. In the written statement filed by the Petitioner, the allegations made in paragraph 8 were described as "vague, indefinite and without full particulars". The part assigned to Shri Ram Chander was denied. In the amended petition the averments in paragraph 8(a) read as under:

(3.) SHRI Ram Chander is a sepoy serving in the 5th Battalion.... His address is C/O. 56 A.P.O.