PARTAP SINGH KHAIRON Vs. RAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of the State of Punjab, challenging an order passed by the Election Tribunal sitting at Chandigarh on the 29th of January, 1959. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly in the general election in February, 1957, from the Sarhali constituency and his election has been challenged by Gurmej Singh, respondent, in an election petition filed in April, 1957. After a long battle in the preliminary stages it was ordered by this Court in a previous petition filed by the petitioner, decided on the 10th of March, 1958 See 14 E.L.R. 412 that two out of the issues framed by the Tribunal as arising out of the election petition should be decided as preliminary issues. The decision of the Tribunal on these issues is now challenged in the present petition. The two issues in question are numbers 3 and 8 which are in the following terms: - -

(2.) IN an exhaustive order covering about sixty typed pages the learned Tribunal has decided both these issues against the present petitioner, and it has been contended on Behalf of the contesting respondent, the petitioner in the election petition, that it would not be proper for us to interfere in a petition under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with the findings of the learned Tribunal on the matters in dispute which can well be left to be dealt with in any appeal which may be filed against the final order of the learned Tribunal. This contention certainly appears to me to be valid so far as it concerns the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 in connection with which the learned Tribunal has relied to a great extent on a decision as yet unpublished of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 231 and 232 of 1958 decided on the 24th of November, 1958 Since reported as Veluswami Thevar v. Raja Nainar (17 E.L.R. 181). On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Daphtary has contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court appears to some extent inconsistent with one or two earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, and from the fact that the decisions in question have not been referred to in the course of the judgment, it was to be inferred, as he contended, that those decisions had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judges who delivered the decision now relied upon by the learned Tribunal, and it was sought to be concluded that the learned Judges might, if the earlier decisions had been brought to their notice, have taken a somewhat different view on the case before them. It seems to me that speculation of this kind would be altogether out of place on our part, and quite evidently it will be for the learned Judges of the Supreme Court themselves to reconcile any inconsistencies which may appear in their decisions, if in fact any such inconsistencies exist. In the circumstances I do not think it would be proper on our part to enter into any discussion on the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3.

(3.) IT is alleged in the petition and supported by an affidavit of Mohinder Singh, Private Secretary (Political) to the Chief Minister, that arguments were heard on the preliminary issues from the counsel for the present respondent from the 27th to the 29th November, and from the counsel for the present petitioner from the 29th of November to the 1st of December, 1958, when an order reserving judgment was passed.