SAEED AHMAD Vs. MURLI DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAYEED Ahmad has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu tion of India, praying that three orders, dated 1-1-1966, 20-1-1966 and 10-3-1966, passed by the Election Tribunal constituted under the U. P. Town Areas Act, be quashed. Copies of these orders have been filed as Annexures IV, VI and A to the writ peti tion.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to this petition are, that election for the office of Chairman Town Area Committee, Phalawda was held on November 29, 1964, in which the petitioner and respondent No. 2 Alim Uddin were the two con testing candidates. The petitioner having secured 1786 votes as against 1778 votes secured by respondent No. 2, was declared elected. Respondent No. 2 Alim Uddin then filed an election petition callenging the election of the peti tioner under Section 8A (4-A) of the Town Areas Act. On 23rd December, 1964, elec tion of the petitioner was challenged on seve ral grounds. One of the grounds, as stated in paragraph 7 (in) of the petition was, that the petitioner himself and through his agents, workers and supporters procured votes of several voters mentioned in Sche dule C by impersonation. It was alleged that the voters mentioned in the schedule were not present at Phalawda on the date of election. In Schedule C names of four such voters were mentioned. The petitioner filed written statement denying the allega tions made in the petition. On 1-1-1966 respondent No. 2 Alim Uddin moved an application for adding the names of seven more persons in Schedule C to the election petition, as persons who were also not present at Phalawda on the date of election and whose votes had been procured by the petitioner, his agents, workers and supporters by impersonation The Election Tribunal without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to contest the amendments proposed, allowed the applica tion for amendment on the very same date on which it was presented i.e., 1-1-1966. When the petitioner came to know about the order made by the Tribunal, he moved an application dated 10-1-1966 for recalling it and to deal with the amendment applica tion after permitting the petitioner to file his objection and after hearing him. The Tri bunal by its order dated January 20, 1966, dismissed the petitioner's application dated January 10, 1966 and confirmed the order dated January 1, 1966 by which he had al lowed the respondent's application for amendment.

(3.) THE order dated 1-1-1966 (An nexure IV) granting amendment of election petition and the order dated January 20, 1966 (Annexure VI) rejecting petitioner's application dated January 10, 1966 for re calling the order dated 1-1-1966 and con firming the same has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Election Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the amendment without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections and without hearing him. The order dated January 20, 1966 refusing to recall the order dated January 1, 1966 was erroneous on the face of it and deserved to be quashed.