I.D. Dua, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116 -A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) from an order of the Election Tribunal, Rohtak dated 7 -1 -1963 dismissing the Appellant's election petition in 'limine' under Section 90(3) of the Act for non -compliance with the provisions of Section 82(b) of the Act by omitting to implead Suraj Bhan as a Respondent who was considered to be a necessary party. The question raised on this appeal, therefore, is a very short one though it cannot be described to be simple or easy to answer. The facts relevant for our purposes may now be stated.
(2.) IN the months of January and February, 1962 general elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly were held and the present dispute arises out of an election relating to the Hissar City Constituency of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Nomination papers were filed on behalf of 11 candidates including Hunna Mai Respondent and Suraj Bhan, his brother. I have mentioned the name of Suraj Bhan because it is the failure to implead him which has given rise to the controversy before us. Five out of the eleven candidates withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time with the result that the names of only six candidates were published under Section 38 of the Act. Suraj Bhan, it may be mentioned, was one who had withdrawn his candidature. As a result of the poll, the Respondent Hunna Ma| was declared duly (sic). The Petitioner who claims to be an elector at the election in question filed the election petition out of which the present appeal has arisen alleging, 'inter alia', commission of corrupt practices by the Respondent, his agents and by other persons with the consent of the Respondent. We are only concerned with the allegations contained' in para 9(c)(I) of the election petition. The petition as presented to the Election Commission dated 84 -1962 contained the following allegations so far as relevant for our purposes in para 9: 9. That the election of the Respondent is void be -cause of the various corrupt practices having been committed by the Respondent, his agents, and by other persons with the consent of the Respondent the details of which are given in the various Sub -paras below: (a) * * * * (b) * * * * (c)(i) That the Respondent by himself and through his agents with his consent has been guilty of the corrupt practice of promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, community and language. The Respondent was in fact a candidate sponsored by Shri Devi Lal of Chautala a rebel Punjab Congress leader who had left the Congress fold and joined hand with Professor Sher Singh Leader of the Hariana Lok Samiti. The very creed of this Samiti was the pro -motion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between the residents of the Punjabi region and residents of Hindi region. This Samiti has in a way divided the Punjab State into two communities Panjabis and non -Panjabis. The chief target of the leaders, workers, candidates sponsored by the Samiti and their agents and workers were the Congress candidates, who were pitched against them in every constituency of the Hindi region whom they described as being the henchmen of Shri Partap Singh Kairon, the Chief Minister of the Punjab, who according to Respondent and his agents was a staunch Sikh and Chief supporter of the cause of the residents of Punjabi region at the cost of the residents of the Hindi region and specially the non -Sikhs among them. They described the Congress candidate Shri Balwant Rai in this Constituency as being an enemy of the residents of Hindi region specially the non -Sikh residents of the Hindi region and preached that if elected he could be a great obstacle in the way of the non -Sikh residents of the Hindi region and would be a cause of the death knell of Hindi language as well. This poisonous propaganda on the basis of two communities Punjabis and Non -punjabis and also on the basis of two religions Sikhs and Non -Sikhs and on the basis of two languages Hindi and Punjabi was resorted to by the Respondent, his chief agent Shri Devi Lal with his consent throughout the constituency right from the date of the filing of the nomination paper by the Respondent up to the date of poll through the various pamphlets, posters and the writings in the paper titled as 'Hariana Kesri' a mouth piece of the ideology of Shri Devi Lal rebel Congress leader. These pamphlets, posters and newspapers containing the poisonous propaganda were got published by the Respondent or by the office of the group headed by Ch. Devi Lal from the office of the 'Hariana Kesri' controlled by Shri Devi Lal with the consent of the Respondent and got distributed by the Respondent through his workers and agents throughout the constituency at a large scale. These writings will be got produced later on when available. In the written statement filed on 11 -7 -1962 preliminary objection No. 3 was raised to the effect that the petition offended the provisions of Section 83(1) inasmuch as it did not contain a concise statement of the material facts nor did it set forth full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices. On the merits paragraph 9(c)(I) was described to be vague and hence liable to be struck off. Besides denying the correctness of its contents, which denial does not concern us on appeal. It was pleaded to be vague and lacking in particulars and thus offending the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. The Petitioner, according to the Respondent's plea, had not given the names of the agents or other persons who committed the corrupt practice of promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, community and language, nor had he given the details of the propaganda and its nature. In the replication filed by the Petitioner in reply to preliminary objection No. 3; it was asserted that all the known particulars, so far as possible In respect of the various allegations of corrupt practices, had been given in detail.
(3.) IN reply to paragraph 9 of the written statement it was reiterated that this paragraph did not suffer from any defect of lack of known particulars and that every known particular so far as possible had been most concisely and without any repetition detailed.;