Shinghal, J. - (1.) Civil Appeal No. 775 of 1975 has been filed under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by Balwan Singh whose election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sarwan Khera constituency at the general election of 1974, has been set aside by the Allahabad High Court by its judgment dated 9-4-1975. The appellant has been held guilty of committing a corrupt practice under Section 123 (5) of the Act, and has been disqualified for a period of six years. His election was challenged on several grounds by an election petition filed by respondents Prakash Chandra and Jai Chandra, hereinafter referred to as the election petitioners, who were electors of the consistituency. There were several candidates at the election, but the main contestants were appellant Balwan Singh of the Bhartiya Kranti Dal (B. K. D.) who secured 34,968 votes, and Raghunath Singh, respondent No.2 of the Congress (R) party who secured 31,008 votes. Appeal No. 1107 of 1975 is by election petitioner Prakash Chandra for setting aside the judgment on issues decided against the election petitioners.
(2.) The allegation regarding the commission of the corrupt practice referred to above was to the effect that the appellant, his workers, agents and supporters, with his consent hired and procured vehicles for the free conveyance of electors. A concise statement of the material facts in that respect was made in paragraph 12 of the election petition. Particulars of the vehicles used for the free conveyance of the electors were given in Schedule III of the petition. The appellant denied the allegation and pleaded in his written statement that none of the vehicles mentioned in Schedule III was either procured or hired by him or his workers and agents with his consent for the purpose of carrying voters to and from the polling stations and that no such vehicle was "used for the purposes of carrying electors to and from the polling stations on the date of poll". It was also stated that the allegations contained in sub-paragraphs 12 (a), 12 (b) and 12 (c) were not the facts required by Section 83. They were totally vague and lacked in material particulars, and were liable to be struck off. The High Court considered that and the other objections and stated in its order dated August 30, 1974, in regard to the objection that the names of the persons who procured or hired vehicles were not given in paragraph 12 or Schedule III, that the counsel for the election petitioner had undertaken to furnish the names. The election petitioners furnished better particulars by adding paragraph 12 (d) stating that the names of the persons who hired or procured the vehicles by which the electors were "carried free of cost from their houses to the Polling station" on the date of election by respondent No.1 were given in Schedule III(1). They gave the parentage and residence of the persons named in Schedule III, as also particulars and names of the persons who hired and procured vehicles for the free conveyance of the electors, and the names of the owners of the vehicles. An objection was then taken that such an amendment was not permissible. The High Court rejected that objection by its order dated October 10, 1974, except that the names of two new persons were not allowed to be inserted in Schedule V, with which we are not concerned.
(3.) The High Court framed several issues, including issue No.2 which was as follows,- "2. Whether the respondent No.1 himself, or his workers and agents with his consent, hired or procured vehicles for the free conveyance of the voters and whether the vehicles so hired and procured were used for the purpose and thereby the respondent No.1 committed corrupt practice." After recording the evidence of the parties, the High Court recorded its finding as follows,- "My answer on issue No.2 accordingly is that the respdt. No.2 procured tractor UPG 9962 with trolly and hired Jeep UPW 359 and Tractor UTE 5865 with trolly and that the said vehicles were used for free conveyance of voters to Naubasta, Jaganpur and Tigain polling stations and further that the respondent No.1 thereby committed a corrupt practice under Section 123 (5) of the R. P. Act." It was in view of that finding that the election petition was allowed with costs, the election of the appellant was declared void, and he was disqualified as aforesaid. That is how appeal No.775 has arisen. The other appeal No.1107 has been filed by election petitioner Prakash Chandra, as he feels aggrieved against the High Court's findings on the other issues, but Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad has stated that he would not press that appeal. We have therefore only Balwan Singh's appeal for consideration.;