MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. BAL MUKAND M L A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha were held in January/February 1992. Polling was held on 19-2-1992 and the counting was done on 20-2-1992. Petitioner contested the election as a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party (hereinafter referred to as B.S.P.) from 95 - Ferozpur Assembly Constituency in Ferozpur district. Respondent No. 1 who was declared elected was a candidate of Congress (i). Respondent No. 1 polled 12513 votes whereas petitioner polled 12158 votes. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected having polled the highest number of votes.

(2.) Petitioner filed the present election petition for declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared void, recounting of votes be done again and the petitioner be declared elected as having polled the highest number of votes. The allegations in the petition are regarding illegalities and irregularities committed by the returned candidate, his agents and Shri H. S. Grewal, who was the Returning Officer for this constituency. No allegations of corrupt practices have been levelled against the returned candidate or his agents having committed the corrupt practices with the consent of the candidate. No relief has been claimed against the respondents on the ground that any of them had committed any corrupt practice. The allegations levelled pertains to the conduct of Sh. H. S. Grewal, Returning Officer, who allegedly committed irregularities and illegalities in counting votes resulting victory for the returned candidate respondent No. 1.

(3.) Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 1 in which apart from the objections taken on merits, a preliminary objection taken is that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that petitioner has made allegations of corrupt practice against respondent No. 1 within the meaning of S. 123(7) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). No affidavit has accompanied the petition in support of the allegations of corrupt practice which is a clear violation of mandatory provisions of S. 83 of the Act r.w. R. 94(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and R. 12 Ch. 4-GG of Vol. V of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Proviso to S. 83(l)(c) of the Act provides that whereverallegations of corrupt practices are made, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such corrupt practices and particulars thereof; that the affidavit in support of the corrupt practices is an integral part of the election petition and since no affidavit has been filed, the election petition presented is no petition in the eye of law and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Although no words to the effect that respondent No. 1 is guilty of commission of the corrupt practice in the guise of obtaining the assistance of government servant in furtherance of his election prospects are there in the petition but the resultant effect of the allegation made is that the petitioner has in fact made allegations of commission of corrupt practice of obtaining assistance of a gazetted officer in the furtherance of his election prospects.