- (1.) Three candidates, Balwan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), Ram Dulari and Gaya Prasad, contested the election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Akbarpur Rural Assembly Constituency No. 6, at the last general elections held in 1957. The polling of votes took place on February 28, 1957, and the result of the election was declared on March 2, 1957. The appellant secured the highest number of votes and was declared duly elected. A voter named Lakshmi Narain - who will hereinafter be referred to as the first respondent - submitted an application to the Election Commission of India to declare the election of the appellant Balwan Singh void on the ground inter alia that the appellant "and/or his election agent and/or other persons with his consent, had committed corrupt practices and the result of the election was materially affected by such corrupt practices committed in his interest." In Cl. (f) of paragraph 9 of the petition, which is material for this appeal, it was averred by the first respondent, that in villages set out in annexure D, the appellant, his agents and workers with the consent of the appellant, hired and procured bullock carts and tractors for conveying women electors to and from the polling station. In Sch. D, was set out a list of 30 villages. This election petition was referred for trial to the District Judge, Kanpur, who was constituted the Election Tribunal for trying the petition. The appellant by his written statement contended that the averments made in Cl. (f) of para 9 were untrue; that neither he nor his agents of workers had ever hired or procured bullock carts or trucks to convey women voters from the villages set out in Annexure D or any other village to the polling station. He also submitted that the first respondent had not disclosed the names of the voters nor the particulars of the conveyances, and that the latter could not in view of the defective pleading be permitted to challenge the election of the appellant on that charge. On July 15, 1957, the first respondent applied for leave to amplify the particulars set out in the various clauses of para. 9 including the particulars set out in Cl. (f) and prayed for leave to amplify the recitals in that clause by incorporating Ann. D-1 in the petition. In Ann. D-1, the first respondent set out the nature of the vehicles used, the names of the owners of the vehicles, the names of the villages from which women voters were conveyed at the expense of the appellant to the polling station and back, the hire paid, and the description of the families to which the women voters who were conveyed belonged. The appellant submitted in rejoinder that by his application, the first respondent in substance sought not to amplify the particulars given by him, but to make allegations about fresh corrupt practices, and prayed that several clauses including cl. (f) of para. 9 be deleted. On July 29, 1957, the Election Tribunal rejected the application of the first respondent. He observed that: "Merely saying that the corrupt practice was followed in the villages whose list was given in annexure 'D' does not amount to giving particulars as were required to be furnished by the aforesaid Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act" and directed that certain paragraphs including cl. (f) of para 9 and Annexure D be struck off :
(2.) Relying upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court delivered on September 9, 1957, Mubarak Mazdoor v. K. K. Banerji, 13 ELR 310: (AIR 1958 All 858) in which, the practice to be followed in dealing with the allegations of corrupt practices, made in an election petition, on the ground of vagueness, was enunciated the first respondent applied for review of that order. The Election Tribunal, by its order, dated September 13, 1957, accepted the plea of the first respondent for review of the order, and directed that the order dated July 29, 1957, be set aside.
(3.) The appellant applied under Art. 227 of the Constitution, to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the correctness and propriety of the order of Election Tribunal reviewing its order dated July 29, 1957. By this order dated March 6, 1958, the High Court substantially confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review its earlier order, and that in the circumstances of the case it was unnecessary to decide whether the order dated 13-9-1957, was properly passed because the order dated July 29, 1957, was "unjust and improper," and the matter having been brought before it in a proceeding under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court could rectify the error by setting aside the earlier order, Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court the averments made in Cl. (f) of para. 9 were restored, and Ann. D-1 was incorporated in the petition.;