KAPUR SINGH Vs. DEVINDER SINGH GARCHA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner contested the election held in February, 1967 to the Lok Sabha from the Ludhiana Parliamentary Constituency. He belonged to the Akali Dal -Master Tara Singh Group (Master Group). Respondent No. 1, the returned candidate, belonged to the Congress party. He polled 1,32,660 votes whereas the Petitioner polled only about 28,000 votes and even lost his security deposit. Respondent No. 2 was also a candidate of the Akali Dal but he belonged to Sant Fateh Singh Group (Sant Group). He polled about 1,13,000 votes. The other contestants and the number of votes polled by them as also the parties to which they belonged are set out below:

(2.) IT may be mentioned that the Ludhiana Parliamentary Constituency comprises eight Assembly Constituencies, viz., Ludhiana. North, Ludhiana South, Kum Kalan, Killa Rai Pur, Jagraon, Rai Kot, Payal and Dakha.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a written statement in which certain preliminary objections were raised but which need not be mentioned. It was admitted that the Petitioner had raised an objection to the acceptance of the nomination papers of Respondent No. 2 but it was averred that the decision given by the Returning Officer was perfectly valid and legal. According to the answering Respondent, Shiromani Akali Dal, which is a recognised political party, had two groups, one headed by Master Tara Singh and the other by Sant Fateh Singh but a strong political animosity subsisted between the two groups. The Master Group was given the symbol of "human hand" whereas the Sant Group was allotted the symbol of "scales". In all predominantly Sikh Constituencies each of these Groups had set up candidates for election. In some of the Constituencies it so happened that the Master Group had set up a candidate but the Sant Group had not, and in that case the Sant Group entered into an alliance with some other party to defeat the nominee of the Master Group. Similarly, where the Sant Group had set up a candidate and the Master Group had not, the latter entered into an alliance with some other party to defeat the candidate of the Sant Group. The Master Group had put up their candidates in all the eight Assembly Constituencies within the Ludhiana Parliamentary Constituency while the Sant Group had sponsored their candidates in six Constituencies excluding Ludhiana North and Ludhiana South. In Ludhiana South the Sant Group was supporting Shri Bhajan Singh, a candidate of the Communist Party, and in Ludhiana North the Sant Group was supporting a candidate other than the candidate of the Master Group. Before the elections, six political parties, i.e., the Sant Group, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, P.S.P., S.S.P. and the Republican Party of India had formed an electoral alliance and jointly supported the candidate or candidates sponsored by these parties. Shri Arjan Singh had been put up as a candidate by the Republican Party for the Ludhiana Parliamentary Constituency as also Shri Narjan Singh and Balwant Singh. The first two withdrew after the nomination papers of Respondent No. 2 had been accepted. Shri Balwant Singh did not withdraw. It was denied that the Petitioner was entitled to combine the votes secured by himself and by Respondent No. 2. It was further claimed that Respondent No. 2 had secured the number of votes which he did, not only because he was the nominee of the Sant Group but also for many other reasons, viz., personal popularity, his influence with the voters, and the help which the workers of the Sant Group gave to him, etc. The Petitioner who was a sitting member of the Lok Sabha from the Constituency in question got very small number of votes which showed that he was not popular in the Constituency. If Respondent No. 2 had not contested, the probability was that the votes which some members of the electorate might have cast for the Sant Group would not have been polled for the Petitioner who was the nominee of the Master Group because of the political animosity which existed in an extreme measure between these two Groups. It was, therefore, not possible to surmise how. many votes would have been polled by the Petitioner if Respondent No. 2 had not been allowed to contest the election. The following issues were framed on 8th May, 1967: