KALYAN SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Shri Kalyan Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At the elections to Territorial Council Himachal Pradesh held in 1957, the petitioner and respondent No. 1, were rival candidates from the Paonta constituency of Sirmur district. The petitioner was declared elected having defeated respondent No. 1 by 1068 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition, challenging the petitioner's election, and presented it to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Nahan, on 31 8 1957, who transmitted it to the Court of the District Judge which was the authority constituted under the territorial Councils Act for the disposal of an election petition. The District Judge dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was time barred and that the security was not deposited in accordance with the provisions of Rule 78 of the Territorial Councils (Election of Members) Rules, i957. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition against the order of the District Judge, which was accepted and the District Judge was directed to proceed with the petition in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petition is based on a variety of grounds, but those which were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner were: Firstly, that the election petition was not validly presented and as such it was not liable to be entertained. Secondly, that the finding of the District Judge that Amar Singh was appointed as polling agent by the petitioner and that he had canvassed for him was incorrect and should be set aside. Thirdly, that Rule 80(6)(c) of the Territorial Councils (Election of Members) Rules, 1957, was ultra vires inasmuch as it was in excess of the rule making powers conferred by Section 20 and was beyond the scope of Section 15 of the Territorial Councils Act, 1956. It has also been argued that the power conferred by Section 20 on the rule making body was in excess of the permissible limits of delegated legislation.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has contested the petition upon the grounds that Rule 80(6)(c) was intra vires and not beyond the scope of the powers of the rule making body, that the petitioner was guilty of having committed corrupt practice in appointing a member of the Armed Forces of the Union as his polling agent and that the finding on that question recorded by the learned District Judge was not liable to be questioned in a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and, lastly, that the election petition was properly presented. It has also been urged that in response to the writ petition, which the respondent No. 1 had filed against the order of the District Judge dismissing the election petition, the petitioner had put forward certain preliminary objections and had also urged additional grounds, which were, however, not pressed at the time of the hearing of the writ petition and as such would be deemed to have been abandoned.