BARU RAM Vs. PARSANNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the order of an Election Tribunal declaring the appellant's election void.

(2.) THE appellant, Shri Baru Ram, was elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Rajaund Constituency in the Karnal District. Smt. Parsanni, one of the contesting candidates, thereupon filed the election petition out of which this appeal arises. In this petition several corrupt practices were imputed to Shri Baru ram and further it was claimed that the nomination of one of the candidates was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The Election Tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence called to prove the various corrupt practices but found that the nomination of one of the candidates, Shri Jai Bhagwan, was improperly rejected and the Tribunal, therefore, held the election to be void and declared it so. Mr. Aggarwal for the appellant contends that the nomination of Shri Jai Bhagwan was properly rejected, but that is not the only question in this case because Mr. Doabia on behalf of the respondent contends that apart from this matter the findings of the Election Tribunal in respect of some of the corrupt practices should be reversed and the final order of the Tribunal dierefore maintained.

(3.) REGARDING the rejection of Shri Jai Bhag-wan's nomination, the relevant facts are these: The date for the filing of nominations was 29-1-1956; the date of scrutiny, 1-2-1. 957; and the date of withdrawals 4-2-1957. Polling took place on 14-3-1957, and the result was declared the next day, Shri Baru Ram having secured the largest number of votes. Shri Jai Bhagwan was not an elector in the constituency, and at the time of the scrutiny on 1-2-1957, the Returning Officer found that a copy of the electoral roll of the constituency, in which Shri Jai Bhagwan was said to be an elector, had not been filed as required by Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Shri Jai Bhagwan, it seems, asked for some time to produce the copy and the Returning Officer allowed him two hours' time. The copy, however, was not produced and Shri Jai Bhagwan's nomi-nation was thereupon rejected. The question is whether the rejection was improper. The Election Tribunal has observed in this connection that Shri Jai Bhagwan was prepared to put in an affidavit, which, in fact, he did later, that he was an elector in another constituency and that, in the circumstances, the Returning officer should have held an enquiry into the matter and should have allowed sufficient opportunity for the purpose, and the time actually allowed was insufficient. Mr. Aggarwal for the appellant contends that this view is untenable and that a mandatory provision of Section 33 of the Act having not been complied with, the nomination was bound to be rejected and the Returning Officer had no option in the matter. To appreciate the controversy it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.