A G RANGANATHA NAYAGAR Vs. K KAMALAKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH reference to the Madras-cum-Chingleput-cum-North Arcot District (Local authorities) Constituency for the Madras Legislative Council, a by-election occurred consequent on the vacancies caused by the retirement of four members. The notification in respect of this by-election. was published in the Fort St. George gazette, Madras, on the 5th March 1960. 15th March 1960 was fixed as the last day for receiving nominations, the scrutiny was upon the 18th March and the 21st march was the last day determined for the withdrawal of nominations. The Andhra pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act LVI of 1959, came into force, as provided for Under Section 1 (2) of that Act, on the 1st of April 1960. It is not in dispute that, under this Act, certain areas originally forming part of Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh (Tiruttani and Prodattur Panchayats) were added to the constituency, Madras-cum-Chingleput-cum-North Arcot district, by retaining the identity of the districts forming the constituency, but enlarging one of the concerned districts by the addition of a taluk. On 7-4-1960, the Returning Officer in charge of this election issued a notification to the effect that those persons who were electors in Tiruttani and Prodattur areas were entitled to vote for this election. The polling was held on 11-4-1960, and completed on 16-4-1960.

(2.) THE results of the poll were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_158_TLMAD0_1962Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE appellant sought to impugn this election by means of a proceeding Under sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951)both upon certain grounds relating to alleged corrupt practices committed by respondents 1 to 7, and upon the ground that the election itself was void, in the peculiar circumstances of its occurrence, Under Sections 100 (1) (b), 100 (1) (d) (ii), 100 (d) (iii) and 100 (1) (d) (iv) of Act 43 of 1951. We are not now concerned with the alleged corrupt practices. The proceeding was dismissed by the Election Tribunal of north Arcot; and the appeal is pressed before us solely with regard to the grounds arising from the enlargement of the area of the constituency, and of the voters, by the effect of Central Act LVI of 1959, which came into force on 1-4-1960, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, during the very middle of a process of election that had already begun. The issues that have been pressed in this form, could be very clearly and simply stated. Learned counsel argues that the process of election is not merely the polling on the date of poll, and the subsequent reckoning of votes, but is continuous process from the date of the notification of the vacancy, and the declaration of that an election will he held. He points out that in Ponnusami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, the Supreme Court has laid down that the term ''election" has a wider significance, and is a process,. and not merely an event. As Fazl Ali J. observed,