D. Falshaw, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of an Election Tribunal dismissing the petition of Lachhman Singh, appellant, challenging the election of the respondent Bibi Harparkash Kaur. The election in question was for the Punjab Legislative Assembly seat for the Jagraon constituency in the general elections held in February, 1957. There were three candidates and Bibi Harparkash Kaur, the Congress candidate, was declared elected, the appellant being second in the poll, while the third candidate Lal Singh lagged behind them. By an order, dated the 20th of August, 1957, the Election Tribunal refused to proceed with the trial regarding certain allegations of corrupt practices contained in the petition on the ground that either they did not amount to corrupt practices or that insufficient particulars were given and the parties proceeded to trial on the following three points: - - (1) Whether on the date of nomination respondent No. 1 was the Chief Organiser of the Central Social Welfare Board at Ludhiana and was getting pay and allowances for the job from the Punjab Government and therefore was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly? (2) Whether Mohinder Singh, election agent of respondent No. 1, served food and tea to Thakar Singh of Jagraon with his family members and Asa Singh Jathedar of Jagraon with his family members and Pritam Singh of Jagraon with his family members, at Jagraon in a kitchen near the bus stand on the 12th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 24th February, 1957, with the object of inducing them to vote for respondent No. 1? (3) Whether respondent No. 1 and her election agent Mohinder Singh induced Dr. Deva Singh, voter in the Gurdwara of village Dholan, on the 15th of February, 1957, to vote for respondent No. 1 with the promise that the land revenue of the crops damaged during the floods of 1955, would be remitted by the Government?
(2.) IT may here be mentioned that the order of the Tribunal striking off certain allegations of corrupt practices was challenged by the appellant in Civil Writ No. 913 of 1957 filed in this court within a month of the order of the Tribunal, but the petition was dismissed in limine by my Lord the Chief Justice and Tek Chand, J., on the 18th of September, 1957, with the remark that the petitioner must exhaust the remedies available to him under the law before invoking the help of the court under article 226. In other words it was left for the matters sought to be agitated in the writ petition to be raised in any appeal which might be filed against the final order of the Tribunal, and as events have turned out, this has had the unfortunate result of necessitating a remand. On the issues tried by the Tribunal it has been found that the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his allegation that the agent of the respondent was running a kitchen for feeding voters on the dates in question could not be relied on, that there was no proof that any voters of Dholan had been induced to vote for the respondent by a promise that the Government would remit revenue for the crops destroyed by floods in 1955, and in fact the revenue for the villages in question in respect of the crops destroyed in that year had long since been remitted by Government before the election took place, and finally that although the respondent at the time when her nomination papers were filed was holding the position of Convenor of the Project Implementing Committee for Ludhiana District under the Central Social Welfare Board, this was not an office of profit under the Government which could disqualify her from being elected, and on these findings the election petition was dismissed with costs.
(3.) IT may be stated at once that the learned counsel for the appellant has not attempted to attack the finding of the Tribunal regarding the alleged inducement of any voter to vote for the respondent on the promise of remitting revenue for 1955. The other findings, however, have been attacked and also the order of the Tribunal on the preliminary issues by which certain allegations of corrupt practices were not allowed to be proceeded with. I propose to deal first with the question whether the respondent at the time of the nomination was disqualified from standing as a candidate by reason of the fact that she held an office of profit under the Government. There is no doubt about the fact that the respondent was appointed in March, 1955, about two years before the election was held, to a post known as the Convenor of the Ludhiana District Project Implementing Committee. The brochure and manual relating to the work of the Central Social Welfare Board which have been placed on the file make it clear that its objects are largely by voluntary efforts to enable and encourage the people to carry out various schemes of social welfare, including development of the resources of particular areas. For this purpose a Central Social Welfare Board has been set up by the Central Government and under its guidance there are Social Welfare Advisory Boards in the various States, and under these State Boards the various District Committees are set up. It would appear that such persons as Convenors of the local District Committees are nominated by the State Advisory Boards, and it is clear from the evidence of Sohan Lal, Superintendent of the Social Welfare Advisory Board, Punjab, and Harbhajan Singh, Accountant of the Project Implementing Committee at Sidhwan Khurd, which is one of the projects being carried out in Ludhiana District, that a certain number of persons are employed as permanent paid staff. It would, however, appear from the evidence that such persons as the respondent as Convenors of local Committees are working purely on an honorary and voluntary basis, and strict control is kept over the expenditure allotted by the Central Board and distributed for various local projects through the State Advisory Boards. Admittedly such voluntary workers are reimbursed for their out -of -pocket expenses by travelling allowance, etc., but it is not contended on behalf of the appellant that such reimbursement would make the position of Convenor an office of profit under the Government. In fact all that it is contended makes the position such an office, is the fact that in the Budget there is provision of Rs. 200 per annum described as "Contingent Allowance to Convenor." It has not, however, been shown that the respondent ever drew on the sum thus provided, even for the smallest amount, but it has been argued that if this provision in the Budget can be regarded as any sort of remuneration for the services rendered by the Convenor, it is immaterial whether the respondent actually availed herself of it or not.;