DINA NATH KAUL NADIM Vs. PEER MUBARAK SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had filed the present appeal against an order of the Election Tribunal declaring the election of the appellant void for having been guilty of corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 108 clause l(b) of the J. and K. Representation of the People Act.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised thus : -

(3.) THE appellant Mr. Nadim and the petitioner respondent Peer Mubarak Shah were the only two candidates for the Teachers Constituency in the State Legislative Council from the province of Kashmir. The polling took place on 26th of June, 1957 and on 29th June 1957, the appellant was declared elected by a majority of 299 votes. On 12 -8 -1957 the respondent filed the present petition before the Election Commissioner praying that the -election of the appellant be set aside and Peer Mubarak Shah be declared elected. The petition was transferred to the Election Tribunal by the Election Commissioner and was dismissed in default en 3 -12 -1957 but was eventually restored on 15 -7 -1958. On 9 -12 -1959 the respondent filed an amended petition by giving further particulars regarding the corrupt practices attributed to the appellant and a further written statement was filed by the appellant on 22 -12 -1959.The appellant had also taken certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent which were disposed of by an order of the Tribunal dated 25 -5 -1960 with which we are not concerned. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal raised as many as 16 issues but we are concerned only with two issues in this appeal because all the other issues have been decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent and the judgment of the Tribunal on those issues has not been challenged by the respondent in this court. We might, however, mention further that the Tribunal has mentioned issue No. 1, no doubt, in its judgment but it has not at all returned any clear finding on that particular issue. The respondent also has not made any grievance that this issue has not been decided by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we take it that Issue No. 1 has been abandoned by the respondent as no arguments on that issue were addressed by either party. As we have indicated above, the main issues that we have to consider in this appeal are issues Nos. 8 and 11. Both these issues have been decide by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.