RAMLAL Vs. VISHVESHWAR NATH
LAWS(RAJ)-1967-8-4
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 01,1967

RAMLAL Appellant
VERSUS
VISHVESHWAR NATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of Vishveshwar Nath Bhargava-respondent to the Lok Sabha from the Ajmer Parliamentary Constituency. The petition has been filed by one Ramlal, an elector of the Constituency. It has been contested the by returned candidate.
(2.) THE grounds on which the petition is based appear from the following issues which were framed in the case: 1. (A) Is the office of pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan (1) under the Government and is it (2) an office of profit within the meaning of article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution? 1. (B) Is the amount of Rs. 300/- which respondent No. 1 was admittedly entitled to draw as Pramukh of Zila Parishad Salary or honorarium or compensatory allowance? 1. (C) Did respondent No. 1 not draw the above amount from the second week of January 1967 up to the date of election? If so, what is its effect? 1. (D) Is the office exempt above from disqualification under Section 3 (1) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act (No. 10 of 1959), 1959? 2. (A) Is Section 10 (2) of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 void on the ground that by delegating its power to the delimitation commission to such an extent the parliament has effected itself? 2. (B) If so, is taking Bhim and Kurabhalgarh Assembly Constituencies to ajmer Parliamentary Constituency void, and the votes polled in these assembly Constituencies should be excluded? If so, how will the result of the election be effected? 2. (C) Can the Delimitation Order. 1966 be challenged before this Court in this Election petition under the Representation of the People Act. 1951? 3. (A) Whether the presiding and polling Officers for Bhim and kumbhalgarh Constituencies were not appointed by District Election officer Ajmer? 3. (B) If so, who appointed them? Was any breach of the provisions of section 25 or 26 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 thereby committed? 3. (C) Is it necessary to go into the above questions in the absence of any allegation in the petition that the result of the election was materially affected by irregularity, if any of the above description?. 4. (A) Did the respondent commit a breach of Section 78 of the representation of the People Act. 1951 by filing the return of his election expenses before the District Election Officer. Aimer and by not filing the return before the District Election Officer, Udaipur? 4. (B) Does it constitute a ground for setting aside the election under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 5. (A) Was the Returning Officer of the Aimer parliamentary constituency not authorised to administer oath to the respondent under article 84 of the Constitution by virtue of Notification No. S. O. 3215 dated 14-11-1963, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), part II, Section 3 (ii ). No. 228 dated 16-11-1963. 5. (B) If so, is the election liable to be set aside under Section 100 (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 6-- To what relief are the parties entitled? findings issue No. 1 (A ). The petitioner was the Pramukh of Ajmer Zila Parishad on the date on which he filed his nomination paper as well as on the date on which the election was held. Under the Rajasthan Zila Parishad (Payment of Allowance to Members) Rules, 1961 as Pramukh of the aimer Zila Parishad he was entitled to a monthly honorarium of Rs. 300/- and was also entitled to draw travelling allowance and daily, allowance in accordance with these rules in addition to the honorarium.
(3.) SOME village panchayats were in existence in Rajasthan when the Constitution came into force and others were established after the coming into force of the constitution in pursuance of the directive principle contained in Article 40 of the constitution, which runs as follows: "40. The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. ";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.