DEVI SARAN Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ-petition, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the quashing of an order of the Election Tribunal, District Mahasu.

(2.) The petitioner was elected President of Gram Panchayat, Kathnol, District Mahasu, in an election, held, on the 30th August 1962. Respondent No. 2 put in an election-petition for setting aside the election of the petitioner. The election- petition was heard by the Election Tribunal District Mahasu, constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. The Election Tribunal declared the election of the petitioner as void on three grounds, namely, (1) that the petitioner was convicted some thirty years ago. in the erstwhile Bhaji State, for an offence under Section 409 I. P. C., which involved moral turpitude; (2) that the name of the petitioner was irregularly included in the Register of Members of Gram Panchayat, Kathnol; and (3) that the venue of polling was changed to benefit the petitioner and there was thus violation of R. 55 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Rules.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present writ-petition, challenging the validity of the order of the Election Tribunal, declaring his election, as void. It was argued, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the proceedings, conducted by the Election Tribunal, were without jurisdiction and void as the Election Tribunal had tried the election-petition at Keliston, Simla, which was not the headquarters; of Mahasu District, in violation of the provisions of Rule 63 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Rules. The aforesaid Rule lays down that the Election Tribunal shall hold its sittings generally at the district headquarters unless the State Government otherwise directs. It is not, in dispute, in the present case, that the trial of the election-petition was conducted at Keliston, Simla which is not the district headquarters of Mahasu District. The point, which requires decision is, whether the holding of the sittings, by the Election Tribunal, at Keliston. Simla, rendered its proceedings, without jurisdiction, In this connection, it is to be pointed out that it is not alleged that the Election Tribunal was not validly constituted or lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter or over the parties. So, the Election tribunal was validly constituted and there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction. The holding of its sittings by the Election Tribunal, at Keliston Simla, was a mere irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The general principle of law is that irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction are curable and capable of being waived and that they do not render the proceeding of a tribunal illegal and void and that if a party waives such an irregularity, he cannot subsequently question the decision of the tribunal on the basis of that irregularity. In the instant case, the petitioner had not, raised any objection as to the place of trial, before the Election Tribunal. He had, therefore, waived the irregularity of the holding of sittings at Keliston, Simla. He cannot be permitted to raise the objection as to the place of trial in the present proceedings. There is no allegation, much less any proof, that the irregularity of holding the trial at Keliston Simla had occasioned any failure of justice. Taking into consideration the fact that the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, was the chairman of the Election Tribunal and one of the two members was an advocate, it would have been convenient for the Election Tribunal and the parties to have heard the election-petition at Keliston, Simla, where the headquarters of the Courts of the Senior Subordinate Judge and the District and Sessions Judge, Mahasu are located. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings of the Election Tribunal were without jurisdiction and void as the trial of the election-petition was held at Keliston, Simla cannot be accepted.