HIRA SINGH Vs. HARI RAM
LAWS(DLH)-1983-9-34
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 08,1983

HIRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
HARI RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BRUCE V. ODHAMAS PRESS LTD. [REFERRED]
HARISH CHMDRA BAJPAI VS. TRILOKI SINGH [REFERRED]
MURARKA RADBEY SHYAM KAM KUMAR VS. ROOP SINGH RATHORE [REFERRED VIRENDRA KUMAR SACKLECHA V. JAGJIWAN AND OTHERS,49 ELR 299.]
RAM SEWAK YADAV VS. HUSSAIN KAMIL KIDWAI [REFERRED SWAMI RAMESHWARANAND V. MADHO RAM AND ANOTHER,40 ELR 281.]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. GIANI KARTAR SINGN [REFERRED]
SAHODRABAI RAI VS. RAM SINGH AHARWAR [REFERRED]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [REFERRED]
JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VS. KIRSHNA BEHARI [REFERRED]
HARDWARI LAL VS. KANWAL SINGH [REFERRED]
P MALAICHAMI VS. M ANDI AMBALAM [REFERRED]
MANPHUL SINGH VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED]
MANPHUL SINGH VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED HARI VISHNU KAMATH V. AHMAD ISHAQUE AND OTHERS,10 ELR216. BHIMSEN V. GOPAL AND OTHERS,22 EL]
RAM SARAT SINGH VS. HARISH CHANDRA MAHTO [REFERRED]
BHABHI VS. SHEO GOVIND [REFERRED]
CHAITANYA KUMAR ADATIYA VS. SUSHILA DIXIT [REFERRED]
UDHAV SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [REFERRED]
SHIV CHAND VS. UJAGAR SINGH [REFERRED SHRI SYED NISAM-UD-DIN V. SH. NISAM-UD-DIN AND OTHERS,42 ELR 275. MR. RAJU V. B. KALANTA IB]
K M MANI JOSEPH THOMAS VS. P J ANTONY:P J ANTONY [REFERRED]
S RAGHBIR SINGH GILL VS. S GURCHARAN SINGH TOHRA [REFERRED BABAJI CHARAN MALIK ALIAS TAPASH KUMAR DAS V. PRAHALLAD MALLIK ANDOTHERS,49 E.L.R. 339.KAMA]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED]
SHRADHA DEVI VS. KRISHNA CHANDRA PANT [REFERRED]
M KARUNANIDHI R RANGASAMI A CHINNADURAI R PERIASAMY A CHINDRASEKHARAN VS. H V HANDE AND OTHRS:C R RAJAPPA:V PERUMAL NAINAR:T P K JAYARAJ:P S MANIAN [REFERRED]
DWIJENDRA LAL SEN GUPTA VS. HAREKRISHNA KONAR [REFERRED]
H R GOKHALE VS. BHARUCHA NOSHIR C [REFERRED RAJ KRISHNA BOSE V. BINOD KANUNGO AND OTHERS,9 ELR294.]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.JAIN, J. - (1.)In tTic general elections of 1983 to the Metropolitan Council, Delhi, respondent No. 1 Hari Ram was returned from Narela, Constituency No. 22. His close rival petitioner Hira Singh was defeated by a margin of 238 votes. In this election petition, he prays that (i) the election of the returned candidate be declared void, and (ii) that he be declared to have been duly elected under sec. 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein the Act), His grounds arc :
(i) that corrupt practice has been committed; (n) that the result of the election was. materially affected (a) by commission of corrupt practice; (b) by improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes and acceptance of void votes; and (c) by non compliance of the provisions of the Act, and the Rules and orders made thereunder. It is also alleged that manipulation in the matter of issue of ballot papers, casting of votes and counting of ballot papers has taken place: see sec. 100(l)(b)&(d) (ii), (iii) and (iv); and

(iii) that in fact he was received the majority votes and further that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice, he would have obtained the majority of the valid votes see sec. 101 of the Act.

(2.)Respondent No. 1 has denied all the allegations. Though at one time, he intened to file a recrimination under sec. 97 of the Act, vide his reply dated 16-3-1983, yet he seems to have changed his mind later on. What are the consequences of want of recrimination were also discussed before me, but I need not talk about them as that does not seem material at the present moment. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder. The parties were examined under Order 10 Rule I Civil Procedure Code Thirty-two issue were framed. Out of them, the following first nine issues were taken up in the first instance:
1. Whether the petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies as required by law? If so, what is its effect? OPR

2. Whether the petitioner discloses no cause of action? If so, what is its effect? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has not been signed and verified in the manner required by law and if so, what is its effect? OPR

4. Whether the schedules and annexures to the petition have not been verified in the manner laid down by law? If so, what is its effect? OPR

5. Whether the petition is not accompanied by requisite number of copies? If so, what is its effect? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner has not filed as many copies of the petition as the respondents in the case are? If so, to what effect? OPR

7. Whether the copies filed by the petitioner were not true copies and not properly attested ? If so, what is its effect? OPR

8. Whether the annexures of the copies were not filed along with the petition nor were they served upon the answering respondents? If so, what is its effect? OPR

9. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPR

(3.)Before I proceed to deal with the issues, I wish to make one observation. The election to the Metropolitan Council and the Delhi Municipal Corporation were held simultaneously on 5-2-1983 and the results were announced on 6-2-1983 and notified on 8-2-1983, by the same team of offucers. Section 9 of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966 provides that the provisions of Part I and Parts III to XT of the Act, and the Rules and Orders made thereunder for the time being in force shall apply in relation to an election to the Metropolitan Council as they apply in relation to an election to the legislative Assembly of a State subject to such modifications, as the. 'Central Government may after consultation with the Election Commission by order direct. Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on the other hand, provides that subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government, the Director of Elections shall conduct tile election of the members of the Corporation. Thus, there is a complete control of the Central Government over the conduct of elections to the Corporation, while in case of the elections to the Metropolitan Council the Election Commission of India lias such control. Even (hough the procedure prescribed for the two elections is more of less the same, the holding of the two elections together under the control of these two different authorities appears to me to hurt the idea of free election and it 13 at least some time difficult to see the two elections in isolation. Indeed, the petitioner has attempted to show discrepancies in these elections and how one has affected the other. Here two separate boxes were provided and the allegation is that ballot papers cast in a wrong box were rejected or accepted so as to favour the first respondent. But, be that as it may, Mr. Bansal contends that we are not concerned in this election petition as to what happended in the elections to the Corporation and we have to confine ourselves to the validity of the elections to the Council. For the present, I will bear this division in mind. So, the issues. ISSUES 1 and 2 :
;


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