KEWAL SINGH Vs. SAT MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the election of the respondent and has prayed that his election be declared to be void and that he be named and debarred or disqualified to contest the elections for a period of six years The petitioner has further prayed that any other relief that may be deemed fit be also awarded and the costs of this petition be allowed to the petitioner.

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated. The petitioner was a contesting candidate at the election to the State Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh held on May 19, 1932 for 95 -Nurpur Assembly Constituency. After referring to the schedule of the election programme, the petitioner has stated that besides the petitioner and the respondent, there were nine other contesting candidates. It is pointed out that the petitioner secured 12,058 votes whereas the respondent got 15,384 votes. It is not necessary to give the details of the votes secured by other candidates. The respondent was declared as a successful candidate in the election. The petitioner has assailed the election of the respondent mainly on the ground that the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery as defined under sub -section (1) (a) and (b) of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act. In the election petition, the instances of the corrupt practices have also been given.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the petition lacks material facts and full particulars ? If so, its effect ? OPR (2) Whether the affidavit attached to the petition is not in conformity with law ? If so, its effect ? OPR (3) Whether the petition has not been verified in accordance with law ? If so, its effect ? OPR (4) Whether the allegations contained in paras 4 (a) to 4 (n) of the Election Petition constitute corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ? OPR (5) Whether the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of law and the rules as required under the Representation of People Act, and the rules thereof ? If so, its effect ? OPR (6) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by distributing discretionary grant through B.D.O. Nurpur as alleged in paras 4 (i) (a) of the petition ? OPP (7) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by distributing old age pension to the persons mentioned in para 4 (b) of the petition ? OPP (8) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice by promising to procure ; old -age pension to the persons mentioned in para 4 (c) of the petition ? OPP (9) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice by promising to get 100 boys of village Danni employed in the Chemara Project as alleged in para 4 (d) of the Petition ? OPP (10) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by distributing pattas to the persons mentioned in para 4(e) of the petition in the manner alleged ? OPP (11) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery of seeking the help of gazetted officers of" Medical Department in starting the three dispensaries as alleged in para 4(f) of the petition? OPP (12) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by opening five Bal Baris as alleged in para 4 (g) of the petition ? OPP (13) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by seeking the assistance of gazetted officers by getting opened the schools at the places mentioned in para 4 (h) of the petition ? OPP (14) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by getting installed tap connections as mentioned in para 4 (j) and (k) of the petition ? OPP (15) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by obtaining and procuring the assistance from persons in service of the Government and belonging to prohibited class and used official car No. HPS -3503 during the elections, as alleged in para 4 (m) of the petition ? OPP (16) Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by getting distributed the amount of aid to poor students as alleged in para 4 (n) of the petition ? OPP (17) Relief. -