TEJ SINGH Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 31st July, 1953.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Amer 'A' Constituency in the last General Elections held in January- February, 1952. Respondent No. 3, Lallu Chand, was also a candidate for election from the same constituency, but his nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer. Lallu Chand filed an election petition, which was referred by the Election Commission to the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, which is respondent No. 1. The Election Tribunal, after enquiry gave its decision on the 31st of July, 1953, that the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 was improperly rejected, and such rejection had adversely affected the election.

(3.) It was alleged that the Election Tribunal was not properly constituted, as Mr. P.L. Shome was not an advocate of the Rajasthan High Court. It was urged that under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the advocate selected should be one practising in the State. It was further alleged that the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 was, as a matter of fact, defective, inasmuch as the said respondent had not appointed anybody including himself as his election agent, which was a mandatory provision of Section 40 the Representation of the People Act, and, therefore, the declaration made in the nomination paper under Section 33 (3) that he had appointed himself as his election agent was not true, and as a consequence, the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 was not in accordance with law. It was accordingly urged that the Election Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the nomination paper had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. It was also urged that the nomination paper filed by respondent No. 3 had subscribed upon it certain signatures purporting to be of the proposer Sohanpal and seconder Dayachand, which, were, as a matter of fact, forgeries, and the Tribunal had wrongly put the burden of proving them to be so on the present petitioner, and had looked at the case from a wrong angle, which had resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It was prayed that the decision of the Tribunal be quashed, and the Election Commission, respondent No. 2 be restrained by an injunction from acting upon that decision.