SHAM LAL SARAF Vs. MOHD SHAFI QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this election petition an application was made on behalf of S Mir Qasim on 23rd May 1967 for being permitted to intervene in the proceedings and argue some points of law common to this petition and other petitions pending before the Election Tribunal appointed to hear election petitions against some returned candidates to the Assembly.

(2.) NOTICE of this application was given to the parties. Objections were filed in respect of the application on behalf of the petitioner and respondent 2. No objections were put in on behalf of Shri Mohd. Shafi Qureshi, respondent 1. The purport of the application of S. Mir Qasim is that under section 51 (a) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which has been wrongly described in the petition as Art. 51 -A making and subscribing of oath before a properly constituted authority is one of the necessary qualifications for an elector to be elected as a member of the legislature. There is an election petition pending against S. Mir Quasim before the Election Tribunal which is styled as Ghulam Rasul Mattu v. Syed Mir Quasim. According to S. Mir Quasim the question relating to the making of and subscribing to the oath as required by S 51 (a) is common to that petition as well as the petition before me. According to the applicant any decision on the question of law involved in this election petition will have repercussions on the decision of petitions including that of the applicant now pending before the Election Tribunal. A further averment is made in the application dated 23 -5 -67 that the applicant is a member and the President of the J&K Pradesh Congress and is deeply interested in the petitions by or against the Congress candidates. He prays that he may be permitted to be heard as an intervener to argue the common points of law arising in the case of the above mentioned election petition. 2. The objections put in by the petitioners learned counsel and respondent 2 are on the file. They oppose the permission sought by S. Mir Qasim.

(3.) THE petitioners objections briefly are that there is no provision in the Act for allowing anybody to be heard as an intervener. The status of this court while hearing election petitions is that of an Election Tribunal and as such its finding is not an authoritative pronouncement of the High Court as such on the points of law that arise for determination in this election petition. In the Supreme Court there are specific rules on the subject permitting intervention. The object of the applicant is to put a clog on the wheels of the subordinate Election Tribunal.