LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. HARPARKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of an Election Tribunal dismissing the petition of Lachhman Singh, appellant, challenging the election of the respondent Bibi Harparkash Kaur. The election in question was for the Punjab Legislative Assembly seat for the Jagraon constituency in the general elections held in February, 1957. There were three candidates and Bibi Harparkash Kaur, the Congress candidate, was declared elected, the appellant being second in the poll, while the third candidate Lal Singh lagged behind them. By an order, dated the 20th of August, 1957, the Election Tribunal refused to proceed with the trial regarding certain allegations of corrupt practices contained in the petition on the ground that either they did not amount to corrupt practices or that insufficient particulars were given and the parties proceeded to trial on the following three points: - -

(2.) IT may here be mentioned that the order of the Tribunal striking off certain allegations of corrupt practices was challenged by the appellant in Civil Writ No. 913 of 1957 filed in this court within a month of the order of the Tribunal, but the petition was dismissed in limine by my Lord the Chief Justice and Tek Chand, J., on the 18th of September, 1957, with the remark that the petitioner must exhaust the remedies available to him under the law before invoking the help of the court under article 226. In other words it was left for the matters sought to be agitated in the writ petition to be raised in any appeal which might be filed against the final order of the Tribunal, and as events have turned out, this has had the unfortunate result of necessitating a remand.

(3.) IT may be stated at once that the learned counsel for the appellant has not attempted to attack the finding of the Tribunal regarding the alleged inducement of any voter to vote for the respondent on the promise of remitting revenue for 1955. The other findings, however, have been attacked and also the order of the Tribunal on the preliminary issues by which certain allegations of corrupt practices were not allowed to be proceeded with. I propose to deal first with the question whether the respondent at the time of the nomination was disqualified from standing as a candidate by reason of the fact that she held an office of profit under the Government. There is no doubt about the fact that the respondent was appointed in March, 1955, about two years before the election was held, to a post known as the Convenor of the Ludhiana District Project Implementing Committee. The brochure and manual relating to the work of the Central Social Welfare Board which have been placed on the file make it clear that its objects are largely by voluntary efforts to enable and encourage the people to carry out various schemes of social welfare, including development of the resources of particular areas. For this purpose a Central Social Welfare Board has been set up by the Central Government and under its guidance there are Social Welfare Advisory Boards in the various States, and under these State Boards the various District Committees are set up. It would appear that such persons as Convenors of the local District Committees are nominated by the State Advisory Boards, and it is clear from the evidence of Sohan Lal, Superintendent of the Social Welfare Advisory Board, Punjab, and Harbhajan Singh, Accountant of the Project Implementing Committee at Sidhwan Khurd, which is one of the projects being carried out in Ludhiana District, that a certain number of persons are employed as permanent paid staff. It would, however, appear from the evidence that such persons as the respondent as Convenors of local Committees are working purely on an honorary and voluntary basis, and strict control is kept over the expenditure allotted by the Central Board and distributed for various local projects through the State Advisory Boards. Admittedly such voluntary workers are reimbursed for their out -of -pocket expenses by travelling allowance, etc., but it is not contended on behalf of the appellant that such reimbursement would make the position of Convenor an office of profit under the Government. In fact all that it is contended makes the position such an office, is the fact that in the Budget there is provision of Rs. 200 per annum described as "Contingent Allowance to Convenor." It has not, however, been shown that the respondent ever drew on the sum thus provided, even for the smallest amount, but it has been argued that if this provision in the Budget can be regarded as any sort of remuneration for the services rendered by the Convenor, it is immaterial whether the respondent actually availed herself of it or not.