GULABCHAND PALLIWAL Vs. GOVIND SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS election appeal raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of section 82 (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951) as amended up to date, hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) THE appellant before us as also respondents Nos. 1 to 4 stood as candididates for the Rajas-than Legislative Assembly from the Gangapur Assembly Constituency at the General Election of 1962. The former stood on the Congress ticket while the contesting respondent (Shri Govind Sahai), stood from the Jan Sangh ticket. There was one more, candidate at this election namely Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma whose nomination paper was duly accepted under Section 36 (8) of the Act. Thereafter the latter withdrew his candidature under Section 37 with the result that he did not contest at the actual poll. It is further admitted between the parties that Shri Damodarprasad Sharma became an election agent of the contesting respondent Shri Govind Sahai at the said election. As a result of the polling which took place on the 25th February, 1962, Shri Govind sahai was declared successful on the 27th February, 1962. Thereupon, the appellant preferred an election petition contesting the election of Shri Govind sahai on the nth April, 1962. This petition was, inter alia, founded on certain allegations as to corrupt practices which were said to have been committed by Shri govind Sahai, the successful candidate. It may also be stated at this place that certafn allegations of corrupt practice were also made against Sri Damodarprasad sharina. An objection haying been raised as to the vagueness of certain particulars stated in this election petition, the appellant submitted an amended application on the 15th February, 1963. On, the 25th February, 1963, the respondent Shri Govind Sahai whom we shall hereafter refer to as the only respondent in the case for facility of reference, raised a preliminary ejection under Section 82 (b) read with Section 90 (3) of the Act to the effect that certain allegations of corrupt practice had been made against Shri damodarprasad Sharma also in sub-paragraphs (ii), (iv) and (ix) of para graph 4 (2) (a) of the amended election petition, that the said Shri Damodarprasad was also a candidate for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Gangapur constituency and had been validly nominated, and, therefore, he was a necessary party to the election petition within the meaning of Section 82 (b) of the Act, and having not been so impleaded, the election petition was bound to be dismissed by virtue of the provision contained in Section 90 (3) of the Act. This application was opposed by the appellant in his reply dated the 28th february, 1963. The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were that shri Damodarprasad was not a candidate within the meaning of Section 82 (b) of the Act and that in any case the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by him were attributed to him not as a candidate but as an election agent of the respondent. The election tribunal upheld the objection raised by the respondent by its order dated the 25th March, 1963, and dismissed the election petition without going into the merits of the case. The appellant election-petitioner has now come up to this Court in appeal under Sec-tion 116-A of the Act.

(3.) THE sole question for determination in this appeal, therefore, is the one we have set out above. The answer to this question is mainly governed by Section 82 (b), section 79 and Section 90 (3) of the Act. Section 82 reads as follows :