K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 7 contested the elec tion of the Municipal Board, Budaun, held in May, 1971 from Ward No. 6 which was a double-member constituency. Petitioner Mohd. Ilyas and respondent No. 3, Tribeni Sahai, were declared elected. Respondent No. 2, Kunwar Bahadur, filed an election petition before the District Judge, Budaun, challenging the election of the petitioner on several grounds. The petitioner filed a written statement and raised certain objec tions about the vagueness of the pleadings. Respondent No. 2 the election petitioner thereupon filed an amendment application for amending the election petition. The District Judge, Budaun, who constituted the Election Tribunal allowed the amendments sought for by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 17th April, 1972. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the Election Tribunal by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion.
(2.) SRI S. N. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that under the provisions of the U. P. Municipa lities Act, 1916, the Election Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction to allow amend ment of the election petition. The impugn ed order of the Election Tribunal, accord ing to the learned Counsel has been passed in excess of its jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in this contention. Section 19 of the U. P. Muni cipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') lays down that the election of any per son elected as a member of the Municipal Board may be questioned by an election petition on the grounds mentioned therein which include the ground of corrupt prac tice, improper rejection or admission of votes and disqualification of the elected candidate. Section 20 provides for the form and presentation of the election petition. According to this section an election peti tion is required to be presented within thirty days after the date on which the result of the election is announced by the Returning Officer. The election petitioner is required to specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the returned candidate is questioned and the petition should contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the election petitioner relies and it should further set forth full particulars of anv corrupt practice which the election petitioner may allege including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have com mitted such corrupt practices and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The petition is required to be signed and verified in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 22 provides that an election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 shall be rejected by the Tribunal. Section 23 lays down the procedure which is to be followed by the Election Tribunal for the trial of the peti tion. The procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code in regard to the trial of the suits is made applicable in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder. Sec tion 24 of the Act prescribes the powers of the Election Tribunal according to which the Election Tribunal shall have the same powers and privileges as a Judge of the Civil Court.
(3.) IN our opinion the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of plaint in a suit apply to the amendment of an election petition under the Act. There is no provision under the U. P. Municipalities Act or the rules framed thereunder excluding the applica tion of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel has fail ed to point out any provision of the Act or the rules thereunder which may be in consistent with the provision for amendment contained in Order VI, Rule 17. It is no doubt true that while allowing the amend ment the Tribunal has no power to allow an election petitioner to introduce by way of amendment a new ground of challenge which may not have been taken in the petition. Section 20 provides limitation of thirty days for questioning the election of returned candidate. The ground or grounds on which the election of a returned candi date is questioned must be set forth in the election petition which is required to be filed within thirty days of the date of an nouncement of the result of the election. If a ground of attack is not raised in the election petition within thirty days, the Election Tribunal cannot allow any such amendment after the expiry of the period of limitation provided in Section 20 of the Act. If, however, the ground of challenge is rais ed, the Tribunal may allow amendment of the petition for giving further particulars of any corrupt practice or further material facts in support of the grounds already taken in the petition. As regards the giving of full particulars of corrupt practice S. 20 of the Act itself lays down that the elec tion petitioner should give as full a state ment as possible of the names of the par ties alleged to have committed corrupt prac tices and the date and place of commission of each such corrupt practice. The use of the words including as full a statement as pos sible" in Section 20 is significant. The Legislature contemplated that in certain circumstances it may not be possible to give a full statement of the names of parties al leged to have committed corrupt practice and date, time and place at the time of fil ing the petition, hence, the expression "as full a statement as possible" was used in Section 20, which indicates the legislative intent, that further particulars may be given later on. In our opinion, an Election Tri bunal constituted under the U. P. Munici palities Act has full power to allow amend ment of election petition. We are support ed in our view by the decision of the Sup reme Court in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Trilold Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444.;