MUKAT BEHARI LAL Vs. SHIV CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the General Elections of 1977, 20 persons filed nomination papers from the Bayana constituency for election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, all of which were found on scrutiny to be valid. Among these persons were the petitioner Mukat Behari Lal, respondent No. 1 Shiv Charan Singh respondents No 2 to 7 and also 12 others. Shri Shiv Gharan Singh (respondent No. 1), secured 16928 votes and was declared duly elected from the aforesaid constituency by the Returring Officer (respondent No. 8). Petitioner Mukat Behari Lal secured 16090 votes. The rest of the persons filing nomination papers seemed votes, the total number of which remained confined to 50423 votes.

(2.) ON July 28, 1977 the petitioner filed the present election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calling in question the election of the returned candidate and for declaration that his election be held null and void and for holding that the petitioner has been duly elected candidate from the Bayana Assembly Constituency. It was in the end, prayed that the respondent No. 1 be declared disqualified for membership of the legislature for a period of six years for committing corrupt practice.

(3.) TO the above application a reply was filed by the petitioner on October 26, 1977. A re -joinder on behalf of the respondent No 1 was also filed on December 31, 1977. On November 30, 1977, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that though the application, dated October 10, 1977, challenging the maintainability of the election petition was based on three grounds, out of which one related purely to a question of law and the rest dealt with mixed questions of law and fact which he did not want to press at that stage. He wanted preliminary decision on the point that as there were allegations of corrupt practices against the candidates, who have not been joined as respondents to the petition, the election petit ion was liable to be dismissed for non -compliance with the provisions of Section 82(b) of the Act.