- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order passed by an Election Tribunal on 13-1-1953 dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner was a candidate for membership of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and he was nominated as a candidate from the Tanda Constituency of Faizabad district. The elections were held in January 1952 and this Constituency was a double member constituency one of the seats being reserved for the scheduled caste. As a result of the counting of the votes Ram Sumer respondent was declared as elected in the seat reserved for the scheduled caste and respondent 2 sri Mohammad Nasir was declared as elected to the general seat. The result of the election was published in the Official Gazette on 26-2-1952 and the return of expenses by the elected members was published on 3-5-1952. The election petition was presented by the petitioner personally in the office of the Election Commission on 16-5-1952, and it was within time on that date. It was, however, discovered subsequently at the office of the Election Commission that the three lists attached to the application were not duly verified as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 83, Representation of the People Act (Act 43 of 1951), and on 21-6-1952 an Assistant Secretary wrote to the petitioner that the lists attached to the petition had not been duly verified and further that no list was submitted with respect to sub-paras (a) and (b) of para 3 of the petition. The petitioner was granted 15 days time to remove the defects failing which the application was to be dismissed under Section 85 of the Act. The Assistant Secretary, however, added. "this letter is to be read as without prejudice to the provisions of law applicable to the case. " on 26-6-1952 the petitioner sent copies of the three lists filed along with the election petition after duly verifying them; he also sent to them a duly verified list with respect to the corrupt and illegal practices mentioned in sub-paras (a) and (b), of para 3 of the election petition -. These lists were received in the office of the Election Commission on 2-7-1952. The Election Commission subsequently passed an order under Section 86 of the Act appointing an Election Tribunal for the trial of this petition. Before the Tribunal a number of pleas of facts and law were taken by the returned candidate Sri Mohammad Nasir and 18 issues wore settled in the case. The Tribunal decided issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 which raised legal questions as to, whether the election petition was duly presented and was in proper form and duly verified, whether it was maintainable, whether it was barred by time, whether the lists of members were duly verified in time and whether the petition was liable to be dismissed on these grounds. The main points urged before the Tribunal were that the three lists filed along with the election petition were not verified at all when the petition was filed, and the petition was thus defective, and the verified lists that the petitioner subsequently sent were filed after the period of limitation had expired. It also appears from the order of the Election Tribunal that a request was made to the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to verify the original lists filed with the election petition. The Tribunal considered these matters in some detail and came to the conclusion that the election petition was defective inasmuch as the lists filed along with it had not been verified, that the lists subsequently sent were sent after the expiry of period of limitation, and that the Tribunal should not permit the petitioner to verify the original lists now. On these findings the petition was dismissed on 13-1-1953. The present writ petition was filed on 16-2-1953 with the prayer already mentioned.
(3.) IN support of the petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged four points. He has urged that only the list giving particulars of corrupt and illegal practices need be filed and verified, but the election petition contained many oilier grounds as well and there could be no question of filing any lists with respect to these grounds. He says that the petition so far as it challenged election on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices may not have been considered, but there was no reason for not considering the other legal grounds mentioned in the election petition and the petition should not have been dismissed in its entirety. I have considered the argument with care but I find myself unable to accept it. There was one joint petition taking both types of objections and if the petition was defective with respect to one type of grounds the Election Tribunal had the jurisdiction to dismiss the whole petition. The election petition is not a type of a document which can be said to be a composite document consisting of two or more separate documents. The prayer that is contained is one, though it may be claimed on several grounds and the document is, therefore, to be considered as a whole and not in parts. If the document is defective in one particular, I think the Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to dismiss the whole of it. It was up to the petitioner to apply to the Election Tribunal to delete the grounds concerning corrupt and illegal practices and confine itself wholly to the other grounds. If such an application had been made the Election Tribunal might possibly have ordered the deletion of the grounds concerning corrupt and illegal practices and proceeded to determine the rest of the petition. But no such application appears to have been made before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal in my opinion was justified in rejecting the entire petition when it found that it did not comply with the requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act. The Representation of the People Act does not anywhere contemplate the rejection of part of a petition and the validity of the petition is to be considered as a whole, though there is no prohibition against the deletion of portions of the application. But such a prayer never appears to have been made before the Tribunal, and as such the dismissal of the entire petition cannot be said to be unjustified.;