RAM LAL JASSI Vs. CHAUDHARY JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of preliminary issues framed on the basis of objections raised by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as returned candidate) whose election to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, from 33-Kartarpur (S.C.) Assembly Constituency has been challenged on the ground that the result of the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has materially been affected by the improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes. It is alleged that the votes have improperly been counted in favour of returned candidate and improperly been rejected which were in favour of the petitioner. The following issues were directed to be treated as preliminary is-sues:-

(2.) In order to appreciate the respective contention of counsel for the parties, it is necessary to notice the allegations contained in paras 8 to 11 of the election petition and also the relevant provision of Section 123 of the Act:

(3.) A reading of the allegations contained in paras 8 to 11 regarding the role played by the Returning Officer, allegedly at the behest of the returned candidate along with Sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act shows that the same have been made to prove that the votes have been improperly counted in favour of the returned candidate and improperly rejected which were in favour of the petitioner. There is no allegation of procuring, and obtaining the help of government servants. Simply because the Returning Officer happened to be a gazetted officer and an allegation is made that the Returning Officer and some of the Revenue Officers helped the returned candidate would not be taken to mean that an assistance rendered by the Returning Officer and revenue Officers would be a 'corrupt practice' within the meaning of Sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act. Petitioner has not charged the returned candidate with corrupt practice. Petitioner has also not claimed any relief against the returned candidate on account of commission of corrupt practice, such as disqualification or barring the returned candidate from contesting the election. Accordingly, the contention of Mr. Chatrath that the allegations contained in paras 8 to 11 of the election petition fall within the definition of 'corrupt practice' as defined in Section 123(7) of the Act and filing of an affidavit in support of the said allegations was mandatory, is devoid of any merit. Consequently, issue No. 7 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the returned candidate.