- (1.) A notification relating to 68 Assembly seats in Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for holding the general elections to the H. P. Legislative Assembly constituencies, was issued. The instant lis pertains to the dispute relating to 11, Doon Assembly constituency.
(2.) The material facts for the purpose of deciding the preliminary issues may now be stated. Election programme with respect to this constituency was as under : 1. Last date of acceptance of nomination papers 16.10.1993 2. Last date of withdrawal of nomination papers 20.10.1993 3. Date of polling 9.11.1993 4. Counting of votes 27.11.1993 5. Declaration of results 28.11.1993 As per list Ex.PW-1 /J, there were 24 validly nominated candidates for this constituency, out of which the parties to the instant election petition contested the election. Remaining candidates including S/Sh. Bhajan Singh, Amar Nath Kaushal and Ram Asra gave notice of withdrawal to the Returning Officer on 20/10/1993 which were accepted and, thus, they withdrew from the election. The total number of votes polled in the said constituency were 38,494. Out of these votes, 285 votes were declared as invalid votes. Chaudhary Lajja Ram, respondent No. 1, was declared elected having secured 14,662 votes against his nearest rival Ram Partap Chandel, the petitioner, who secured 14,059 votes. The petitioner his assailed the election to this constituency by filing the instant election petition, registered as E.P. No. 3 of 1994, praying that : (a) ballot papers be re-counted; (b) that the election of Chaudhary Lajja Ram (respondent No. 1) be declared as void and the petitioner be declared to have been duly elected from this constituency; (c) that Chaudhary Lajja Ram be held guilty of committing corrupt practices and resultantly, he be declared disqualified for a period of six years. A challenge to the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 has been made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had committed corrupt practices, by capturing Booth No. 49, situated at village Billanwali Labana, under sub-sec.(4) of S.123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended up-to-date (shortly hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This ground was based on the allegations : (i)That polling in Polling Booth No. 49, situated at Government Primary School, Billanwali Labana was initially peaceful. However, at about 2 p.m., Sh. Bhajan Singh son of respondent No. 1 as also his election agent came along with 70 other unknown persons (some of them being Sikhs and others clean shaven) in two trucks bearing No. HIA6775 and HIA-6552, owned and possessed with route permit, in the individual names of Chaudhary Lajja Ram, respondent No. 1 and Harbhajan Singh, his son, respectively, having flags of Congress Party and banners of Chaudhary Lajja Ram, respondent No. 1, as also his posters pasted on said trucks; that said Harbhajan Singh, after getting down from the truck went inside the Polling Booth and took Subhash Chander Agnihotri, the Presiding Officer, out of the Polling Booth on one side and apprised him (within the hearing of Mohinder Singh, one of the polling agent of the petitioner) that respondent No. 1 had sent those persons to cast vote in place of such persons who do not turn up for the polling: that said Harbhajan Singh told him (Presiding Officer) that the Congress Party would come in power and he would be benefited, to which the latter agreed; that after about 10 minutes, these persons along with Harbhajan Singh aforesaid came in and captured the Polling Booth, threatened the polling agent of the petitioner to keep quite and sit in calm and in these circumstances, the Presiding Officer allowed those unknown persons to cast their votes; that S/Sh. Chanan Singh and Mohinder Singh, polling agents of the petitioners raised an objection to the identity of these voters and to the polling of these bogus votes by depositing the requisite fee qua each one of these electors with the Presiding Officer but he neither heard the objection nor allowed the money to be deposited; that various persons whose particulars have been detailed in para 6(b) to 6(e), did not turn up for voting but their votes were got cast by booth capturing by said Harbhajan Singh, son as also election agent of Chaudhary Lajja Ram, in connivance with the Presiding Officer; (ii) That on 1-11-1993 at about 6 p.m., the petitioner, his son as also his election agent Harbhajan Singh (who handed over the material) along with Sh. Amar Nath Kaushal, later on appointed as counting agent, went to M/s. Sehgal Printers and Packers, Rajgarh Road, Solan, owned by Sh. Rajnish Sehgal in Maruti Car bearing No. HP-12-0015 and got 6000 pamphlets published under the heading "Mama Bhanja Chhal Se Doon Kshetra Ko Bachao" (save Doon area from plans of Mama and Bhanja) and distributed the said pamphlets, containing false and defamatory statements with respect to the honesty, integrity and veracity, i. e. personal character and conduct of the petitioner, a copy of which is Ex. P-1, with a view to damage his prospects in the election, in a subsequent public meeting of the Congress Party, just before its closure, held on 4-11-1993 in village Baddi in an open space near the Bus Stand on the back of the Excise Barrier, which was earlier addressed by Sardar Beant Singh, the Chief Minister of Punjab, Chaudhary Lajja Ram (respondent No. 1 ), Ram Asra, President of Doon constituency Congres Party (I) Unit and other Congress leaders. (iii) That aforesaid, persons headed by Chaudhary Harbhajan Singh, the election agent of the petitioner along with Amar Nath Kaushal and Hem Shankar came in a gypsy bearing registration No. HIA-6372 went to the shop of Asha Ram, Dentist which was also being used as the Office of the Congress by respondent No. 1 and Amar Nath aforesaid, pasted the pamphlet on the shop of Asha Ram and handed over some of them for distribution as also Asha Ram distributed the said pamphlets to various shopkeepers. Shri Mohinder Singh, President, Gram Panchayat, Matooli, a supporter of the petitioner did raise an objection to such distribution, but of no avail. The above said pamphlets were also allegedly pasted and distributed on 5-11-1993 by these persons in villages Diggal, Barotiwala and subsequently they repeated the same work of pasting and distribution of pamphlets on 7-11-1993 in village Bhatauli Kalan and Goela.
(3.) Notice of election petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 7 refused to accept service whereas, respondents 2 to 6 and 8 remained absent despite service. Respondent No. 3 put in appearance on 8-3-1994 but absented on the adjourned date. Thus, respondents 2 to 8 have been proceeded ex parte. Only respondent No. 1, the returned candidate, has resisted and contested the election petition by raising two preliminary objections on the grounds : (i) that the averments with respect to the alleged irregularities committed in relation to counting of votes detailed in para 8, are vague and are lacking in material; and (ii) that the election petition deserves to be dismissed for want of necessary parties in as much as the allegations of corrupt practices have been made against S/Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Ram Asra and Amar Nath Kaushal in the petition, who were validly nominated candidates, though later withdrew from the election, have not been made parties in the election petition. As such, the petition being not in conformity with S. 82 of the Act, is liable to be dismissed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 86 thereof. On merits, the detailed facts pertaining to the commission of corrupt practices by respondent No. 1, muchless by other persons, have categorically been denied. Respondent No. 1 has denied the fact that any attempt was made for booth capturing or booth was captured or any bogus voters were brought by Harbhajan Singh aforesaid or any other person on his behalf. Similarly, the publication and printing of aforesaid pamphlets by respondent No. 1 or his election agent or any other person, is denied. The factum of getting the receipt in the name of Amar Nath Kaushal and handing over or getting the pamphlets published in the manner alleged by the petitioner or visits to various villages by election agents or workers of respondent No. 1, has also been controverted. In crux, according to him, he neither consented to nor participated nor asked any person for the capturing of booth nor to the publication or distribution of the abovesaid pamphlets in the manner alleged by the petitioner. In short, all allegations in this respect have been categorically denied.;