AMIN LAL BALA RAM Vs. HUNNE MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116 -A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) from an order of the Election Tribunal, Rohtak dated 7 -1 -1963 dismissing the Appellant's election petition in 'limine' under Section 90(3) of the Act for non -compliance with the provisions of Section 82(b) of the Act by omitting to implead Suraj Bhan as a Respondent who was considered to be a necessary party. The question raised on this appeal, therefore, is a very short one though it cannot be described to be simple or easy to answer. The facts relevant for our purposes may now be stated.

(2.) IN the months of January and February, 1962 general elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly were held and the present dispute arises out of an election relating to the Hissar City Constituency of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Nomination papers were filed on behalf of 11 candidates including Hunna Mai Respondent and Suraj Bhan, his brother. I have mentioned the name of Suraj Bhan because it is the failure to implead him which has given rise to the controversy before us. Five out of the eleven candidates withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time with the result that the names of only six candidates were published under Section 38 of the Act. Suraj Bhan, it may be mentioned, was one who had withdrawn his candidature. As a result of the poll, the Respondent Hunna Ma| was declared duly (sic). The Petitioner who claims to be an elector at the election in question filed the election petition out of which the present appeal has arisen alleging, 'inter alia', commission of corrupt practices by the Respondent, his agents and by other persons with the consent of the Respondent. We are only concerned with the allegations contained' in para 9(c)(I) of the election petition. The petition as presented to the Election Commission dated 84 -1962 contained the following allegations so far as relevant for our purposes in para 9:

(3.) IN reply to paragraph 9 of the written statement it was reiterated that this paragraph did not suffer from any defect of lack of known particulars and that every known particular so far as possible had been most concisely and without any repetition detailed.