BALWANT RAI TAYAL Vs. BISHAN SAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Balwant Rai Tayal against the order of an Election Tribunal sitting at Hissar accepting the election petition of Bishan Saroop and Misri Lal respondents and declaring the election of the appellant to the Punjab Legislstive Assembly to be void under section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951. The case has arisen out of the election held to fill the Punjab Legislative Assembly seat from the Hissar City constituency in the general election of 1957 in which polling took place on the 7th of March 1957. Eleven candidates filed nomination papers of whom five withdrew within the time fixed, another candidate also announcing. his withdrawal after the prescribed period. In the election the appellant Balwant Rai Tayal stood first in the polling and was declared elected and his election was challenged in a petition giving rise to this appeal by Bishan Saroop and Misri Lal who stood second and third in the poll.

(2.) WHEN the petition came up for hearing before the Tribunal a number or preliminary objections were raised and it was contended inter alia that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that it had not been properly verified and that the numerous alleged corrupt practices which were put forward as a ground for unseating the successful candidate were not set out with sufficient particulars as required by section 83(1)(b) of the Act. These matters were decided by the Tribunal by its order dated the 31st of October, 1957 in which it was held that the petition was not properly verified and that the allegations of corrupt practices did not comply with the provisions of section 83(1)(b). It was, however, held on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi and Another v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani and Others : 10 E.L.R. 357 : A.I.R. 1955 S. C. 610, that the petition should not be dismissed in limine on account of these defects and the petitioners were allowed on payment of costs, to put in an amended petition in which the defects were to be remedied and it was ordered that if the particulars required by section 83(1)(b) were not furnished to the amended petition regarding any particular allegation, that allegation would be deleted and the petitioners would have to confine themselves to those allegations in which the proper particulars were supplied.

(3.) WHEN the amended petition was filed the respondent again took objection to its form and by its order dated the 12th of February 1958 the Tribunal struck out certain allegations of corrupt practices which it held did not comply with the provisions of section 83(1)(b). The issues ultimately framed were as follows: