DAHU SAO Vs. RANGLAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by Shri Dahu Sao, who was the petitioner before the Election Tribunal, Dhan-bad, and had asked it to declare the election of Shri Ranglal Chaudhary, respondent No. 1, as void. There was a by-election held on 21st and 22nd of December., 1958, to fill up a vacant seat of the Dhan-bad Constituency in the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Several persons had filed their nomination papers on or before 8-11-58 as candidates for the said by-election. Besides the appellant and respondent No. 1, the other candidates were Shri Mahesh Desai and Shri Binode Bihari Mahto, respondents 2 and 3, respectively and Shri Rupan Prasad, Shri Harbans Singh and Shri Dhirendra Chandra Mallick, who were not joined as respondents in the petition. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was held by the Returning Officer on 11-11-58 and the nomination paper of the appellant as also of Rupan Prasad was rejected by him. Dhirendra Chandra Mallick and Harbans Singh withdrew their nomination on 14-11-1958, the last date for withdrawal. The contest, therefore, was among the three respondents. Respondent No. 1 having secured the largest number of votes was declared elected. Thereafter, the present application giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the election of the first respondent chiefly on two grounds--(i) that the nomination paper of the appellant as also of Rupan Prasad was improperly refected; and (ii) that various corrupt practices had been committed by the returned candidate or his election agent or by other persons with the consent of the returned candidate and the result of the election had been materially affected by the corrupt practices committed in the interest of the returned candidate.

(2.) The election petition was contested by the first respondent who controverted all the allegations made on behalf of the appellant. He also raised certain technical pleas in regard to the maintainability of the application and likewise. The second respondent did not appear, at all. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement supporting the case of the appellant.

(3.) As many as seven issues were framed by the learned member. Some were answered in favour of the petitioner and some against him. The first respondent in this appeal has not tried to attack the decision of the Tribunal in regard to those issues which have been decided in favour of the appellant. And, the appellant also has not attempted to assail the decision of the Tribunal in regard to all matters decided against him but he has picked up a few and pressed them for our consideration in .support of the appeal. The decision on the 6th issue in regard to the rejection of the nomination paper of Rupan Prasad has not been attacked before us by Mr. K. P. Varma, learned Advocate for the appellant. He has concentrated his whole argument with respect to the 3rd issue, namely, as to whether the nomination paper of the appellant was impronerly rejected. In that connection, he has also pressed the 7th issue which runs thus : "Was the date of the scrutiny illegally postponed?" He also endeavoured to press for our consideration. one item of the alleged corrupt practices but found much difficulty to pursue even that up to the last and ultimately did not seriously press it. I shall, therefore, first address myself to the main argument advanced in support of this appeal.