IQBAL SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IQBAL Singh, election petitioner, was an indepeadent candidate for election to 104-Faridkot Assembly Constituency, which was held on February 19,1992. He was defeated at the poll. He has challenged the election of the returned candidate Shri Avtar Singh on the ground that the latter conspired with S. Beant Singh, who was at the relevant time President, Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee and bargained with Shri Harmail Singh Dhillon, respondent No. 2, to withdraw from the contest. He was appointed as a General Secretary of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee as quid pro quo for withdrawing from the contest. It will be relevant to reproduce the allegations of alleged corrupt practice of bribery made by the agent of the returned candidate in the election petition :-

(2.) THE allegations of corrupt practice were denied by the Returned Candidate. Preliminary objections were taken that the allegations of corrupt practice made in paras Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Election Petition are vague, nebulous, irrelevant, unnecessary general in nature and amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and are liable to be struck out under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, 'the Code'. It was further pleaded that the returned candidate has not been served with a true copy of the election petition. True copy of the election petition includes the affidavit sworn in by the petitioner under Rule 96-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for short 'the Rules'. The copy of the affidavit furnished to the returned candidate does not bear the name and designation of the Notary as it also does not carry the stamped endorsement made under the signatures of the Notary/oath Commissioner, which finds place in the original affidavit. The absence of the en-doresement of the Notary/oath Commissioner on the copy of the affidavit accompanying the election petition renders the copy as not conforming the requirements of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of People Act. The omission is of vital nature, which is likely to prejudice the returned candidate. The election petition is liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 and Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code read with Sections 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act. The allegations of corrupt practise made in paras Nos. 3 and 20 of the electionpetition have not been confirmed on affidavit. On merits, it was pleaded that 31,282 valid votes were polled, the answering respondent secured 15,823 votes whereas, the petitioner secured only 1748 votes. The election petitioner has not disclosed as to how the commission of alleged corrupt practice, the result of the election so far as the returned candidate is concerned has been materially affected. It was further pleaded that returned candidate claimed that he had been President of the Faridkot District Congress Committee since 1973. Giani Zail -Singh was the Chief Minister of Punjab at that time. Late Shri Darbara Singh was the Chief Minister of Punjab from 1980 to 1983. Shri Beant Singh was the Minister of Public Works Department in his Cabinet. Shri Harmail Singh Dhillon had been the Vice-Chairman of the Punjab State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED) and the Chairman of Market Committee, Faridkot during the period Sar-dar Beant Singh was the Minister of Public Works Department, Punjab. The allegation that Shri Harmail Singh Dhillon belonged to the dissident group was denied. It was asserted that there was no dissident group in the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee. The returned candidate was allotted the Congress ticket for contesting election from Faridkot Assembly Constituency by the Congress High Command purely on the basis of his seniority, merit and dedication to the party. Shri Harmail Singh Dhillon was also an aspirant for the ticket of the Congress Party for election to the Faridkot Assembly Constituency. He and the returned candidate both have been trying for the ticket of the Congress party for the election. Harmail Singh Dhillon filed his nomination papers from 104-Faridkot Assembly Constituency on February 1, 1992, the date on which the nomination papers were to be filed, with the hope that he might be granted the ticket of the Congress Party. He withdrew his candidature on the last date of withdrawal as a disciplined member of the Congress Party since he was not allotted the ticket by the Congress High Command. The aspirants of ticket of the political party present their nomination papers in anticipation that they may be allotted the tickets and when they are not allotted the tickets by the particular political party, they withdrew their candidature on the date of withdrawal and thereafter, the Returning Officer prepared the list of valid nominated candidates at the election. It was denied that respondent No. 2 withdrew from the contest as respondent No. 3 has appointed him as General Secretary of the Punjab Pradesh Congress Party as quid pro quo for withdrawing from the contest.

(3.) THE election petitoner filed a rejoinder to the written statement and reiterated the facts pleaded in the election petition. He disputed that the allegations made in the election petition are vague and that the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice suffers from any infirmity.