SITA RAM SHARMA Vs. NARAIN SINGH SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election for 22 Ghumarwin Constituency to the State Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh was held on May 19, 19

(2.) The parties to this petition and six other persons were the contesting candidates in the said election. The counting of votes took place on May 21, 1982 and the respondent was declared elected having secured 11, 836 votes. The petitioner secured 11,350 votes. The total votes polled were 24,422 out of which 24,159 votes were validly polled and 263 votes, were invalid. The result of the election shows that it was a hotly contested election for the parties. Besides 8 persons who contested the election, two more persons, that is, Sarvshri Jagdish Ram and Karam Dev Dharmani had also filed their nomination papers which were duly accepted but subsequently they withdrew from the contest. The respondent contested the election as a Bhartiya Janta Party candidates while the petitioner contested the same as a Congress (I) candidate. As the respondent was declared successful, therefore, the petitioner has now filed the present election petition challenging the election of the respondent and the petitioner prays that the election of the respondent be declared as void on the ground of corrupt practices with a further prayer that the respondent be disqualified for a period of six years from contesting the election.

(3.) Various corrupt practices alleged in the petition are : (a) That the respondent has incurred or authorised incurring of expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the details of which have been given in the petition. According to the petitioner the authorised expenditure was Rs. 12,500 while the respondent had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 19,902.19 which exceeded the limit, (b) That the respondent published false statement or got them published by his agents and by others with his consent believing them to be false or at any rate not believing them to be true. It is alleged that these false statements relate to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner and were reasonably calculated to prejudice the election and have actually resulted in a large number of electorates being mislead and not voted for the petitioner. The details of various false statements have been enumerated in paras (5)(a) to (d) and these are alleged to have been made during the public meetings held on 4 -5 -1982 and 10 -5 -82. (c) That the respondent either himself or through his agents or other or persons with the consent of himself and his agents had taken assistance of number of Government servants of the prohibited class to further the prospects of his election. The details of these corrupt practices are also mentioned in paras 6 (a) to (e) of the petition. (d) That the respondent committed the corrupt practice of hiring or procuring whether on payment or otherwise of two trucks HPN 347 and HPS 4875 for conveyance of the voters free of charge to and from various polling stations. The details of the polling stations have been mentioned in para 3 of the petition.