MEHAR SINGH, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals, F.A.O. Nos. 3 -E and 4 -E of 1962, are against the order, dated November 23, 1962, of the Election Tribunal II at Chandigarh, whereby two election Petitions, No. 345 of 1962 by Shri Lachhman Singh respondent and No. 346 of 1962 by Shri Abdul Ghani respondent, were partly accepted inasmuch as the election or the appellant, Dr. Anup Singh, to the Council of States was set aside and declared void and Shri Abdul Ghani respondent, was declared elected in his place, the two petitions having been dismissed against the other two respondents, namely, Shri Chaman Lal and Shri Surjit Singh, who were also elected to the Council of States at the same election
(2.) THE Legislative Assembly of Punjab was to return three elected members to the Council of States and the polling took place on March 29, 1962. The candidates polled first preference voles, according to the first count, as below - 1. Dr. Anup Singh. .... 36 2. Shri Chaman Lal..... 38 3. Shri Abdul. Ghani. . . . . 35 4. Shri Surjit Singh..... 33 5. Shri Krishnamurthy ..... 4 This was on the basis of valid voles after dropping the rejected ballot -papers. The returning officer then proceeded to transfer preferences and in consequence of that he arrive at this result: 1. Dr. Anup Singh, . . . .. 36.5 2. Shri Chaman Lal..... 36.51 3 Shri Surjit Singh..... 38.19 4 Shri .Abdul Gbani..... 35 Accordingly he declared the first three to have been duly elected to the Council of States. Two election petitions were filed, which ultimately came to be heard by the learned Tribunal, challenging We election of the three elected candidates, one petition was by Shri Lachhman Singh respondent and the other by Shri Abdul Ghani respondent. In the end both the petitions were, for all practical purposes, dropped and not pressed in regard to the election of Shri Chaman Lal and Shri Surjit Singh and consequently the same were dismissed so far as these two respondents are concerned. There remained the claim of Shri Lachhman Singh and Shri Abdul Ghani, respondents, against the appellant, Dr. Anup Singri.
(3.) A large number of grounds were taken in the petitions, including those based on an appeal to the electorate on ground of religion against Shri Abdul Ghani respondent and a number of corrupt practices, but none of those grounds survives and is relevant so far as these two appeals are concerned, and the only ground which has really been a matter of controversy between the parties even before the learned Tribunal is that three votes, Exhibits P -1 to P. 3, cast in favour of Shri Abdul Ghani respondent were wrongly and improperly rejected and five votes, Exhibits P -73 to P -77, cast for the appellant were wrongly and improperly accepted, having been cast on invalid ballot -papers. The only other question that comes in for consideration in these appeals Is the claim of the appellant that both the election petitions are liable to dismissal under Sub -section (3) or Section 90 because of non -compliance of Sub -section (3) or Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951).;