- (1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the appellant, an engineer by education, an agriculturist by profession who tried his hand in politics, by contesting the Assembly Election of 1992 for 104-Faridkot Assembly Constituency as an independent candidate, is whether the High court committed any error of law in dismissing his election petition filed under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on preliminary objection, raised by the returned candidate that the petition did not contain a concise statement of material facts setting forth full particulars of the corrupt practice as required by Section 83 of the Act.
(2.) The High court dismissed the petition, also, because the copy supplied, to the returned candidate, was not a true copy within meaning of Ss. (3 of Section 81 of the Act as it did not carry the necessary endorsement in the affidavit accompanying the election petition. Further the High court found that even if the allegations made in the election petition were correct they were not sufficient to make out any case of corrupt practice or any ground under Section 100 of the Act. It is, therefore, proposed to examine the correctness of the finding on corrupt practice only as if that finding is held to be well founded then it shall not be necessary to examine the other findings.
(3.) Election for the Faridkot Constituency was held in 1992. One of the candidates who had filed his nomination was one Shri Harmail Singh Dhillon who was a member of the Congress Party and expected to be declared as official candidate. But when the returned candidate was declared as official candidate of the Party he withdrew from the contest on the last day. He was later appointed as General secretary of the Pradesh Congress Committee by Shri Beant Singh who was President of the Pradesh Congress Committee. The two incidents, that is, the withdrawal of Shri Dhillon, and his appointment, shortly thereafter, as General secretary are the two facts on which the entire election petition and the allegation of corrupt practice which is the sole ground for challenging the election is structured. According to appellant since Shri Dhillon was a very popular person and held number of offices and if he would have contested the election the returned candidate who too was a Congress nominee had no chance of being elected, therefore, Shri Beant Singh who was friendly with the returned candidate exercised his influence on Shri Dhillon and persuaded him to withdraw and as a quid pro quo of the same he appointed him as General secretary of the Pradesh Congress Committee. Relevant allegations in the petition are extracted below: "9.That in order to remove Respondent 2 from the contest for 104 faridkot Assembly seat. Respondent 1 and Respondent 3 conspired and bargained with Respondent 2 by offering him to get appointed as General secretary of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee as quid pro quo for withdrawing from the contest. 19. That on perusal of paras 16, 17 and 18 as above it becomes crystal clear that the appointment of Respondent 2 as General secretary of Punjab 749 Pradesh Congress Committee as quid pro quo for withdrawing from the electoral process amounts to gratification and is, thus, corrupt practice. 20. That the fact that Respondent 2 was appointed General Secretary of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee by Respondent 3 at the behest of Respondent 1 (as discussed in paras 5 and 12 in doing so for the purpose of inducing Respondent 2 to withdraw from the electoral contest amounts to corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (1 of the Representation of the People Act and so held in a number of judgments given by our own High court and Apex court and thus. Respondents 1 and 3 have committed corrupt practice and as such Respondent 1's election to 104-Faridkot Assembly Constituency is liable to be set aside. 21. That the fact that Respondent 3 acted as agent of Respondent 1 to appoint Respondent 2 as General secretary of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee and getting him to withdraw from the electoral contest for the said election amounts to corrupt practice which has materially affected the outcome of the election result. As Respondent 2 is a man of great influence in this Constituency and would have tilled the balance against Respondent 1 as both belong to the same party but opposite groups. It is pertinent to add here that Respondent 2 is related to late S. Darbara Singh and S. Jagmeet Singh Brar, who at present is leading the dissident group in the Congress Party in Punjab. Hence, under Section l00 (d) (ii) of the Representation of the People Act, it is prayed that this election be set aside. "in his submissions and written argument filed by the appellant, who appeared in person, it was urged that since the returned candidate did not dispute that Shri Beant Singh was the President of the Pradesh Congress Committee with whom the returned candidate was on good terms, nor did he dispute that Shri Dhillon was appointed as General secretary of the Congress Committee it was not necessary for the appellant to lead any evidence and the allegation of corrupt practice stood proved. The High court found that there was no other material from which it could be gathered that the two incidents, that is, the withdrawal of Shri Dhillon and his appointment as General secretary, Pradesh Congress Committee were interrelated and Shri Beant Singh was responsible, directly or indirectly, in persuading him to withdraw and as a price for that withdrawal, appointed him as General secretary.;