- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Election Tribunal, Hissar, dated 14-9-1958, by which the election petition filed by Sant Lal respondent was allowed and the election of Rani Dial appellant declared void. In the grounds of appeal the interim order of the Tribunal dated 31-10-1957, by which amendment of the election petition in certain respects was allowed has also been challenged.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the sirsa Constituency held in March, 1957. This was a double-seat constituency, one seat being reserved for the members of the scheduled castes; Ram Dial appellant was elected in respect of the general seat and Kesra Ram in respect of the reserved seat. It appears that after the withdrawal of nominations, there were only sixteen candidates left in the field who contested the above two seats out of whom eight candidates were concerned with the seat reserved for Harijans. Shri Sant Lal respondent secured 23,329 votes and Ram Dial appellant, the returned candidate, secured 27,272 votes. The polling took place on the 12th and 14th of March and the result was declared on 17-3-1957. Kesra Ram, as mentioned above, was declared elected in respect of the reserved seat but as no relief has been claimed against him, we are not concerned with his election in the present appeal. On the 28-4-1957, Sant Lal preferred the election petition challenging the election of Ram Dial appellant out of which the present appeal has arisen.
(3.) THE validity of the election was challenged on a large number of grounds, but the only allegations with which we are now concerned in this appeal relate to some of the corrupt practices contained in certain sub-paras of paragraph 13 of the election petition. The allegations enumerated therein are divided into seven sub-paras. Sub-para. (A) contains instances of corrupt practices by way of bribery. In sub-para. (B) the petitioner has enumerated the corrupt practices of undue influence, and in sub-para. (C) the corrupt practices of making systematic appeals to all Brahman electors of the constituency in question to vote for Ram Dial on the grounds of caste etc. , are mentioned. Sub-para (D) contains the corrupt practices of publication of false statements of fact both in relation to the candidature and personal character and conduct of Sant lal respondent which statements, according to the respondent, the publishers must have believed to be false or could never have believed to be true; sub-para (E) relates to the corrupt practice of hiring or procuring, on payment or otherwise of vehicles for the conveyance of electors to and from the polling stations: sub-para (F) refers to contravention of Section 77 of the Representation of the People act which deals with the mode and extent of incurring or authorising of election expenditure, and sub-para (G) contains allegations of corrupt practices of obtaining and procuring the assistance of persons in Government service etc. , for furtherance of the prospects of the appellant's election. The petition was resisted on the merits and some preliminary objections were also raised by the appellant. The preliminary objections gave rise to the following four preliminary issues: (1) Whether the petitioner had failed to implead the necessary parties, and what was its effect? (2) Whether the petition was barred by time? (3) Whether the allegations regarding the corrupt practices lacked in essential particulars as required by Section 83 (2) of the Act? (4) Whether the petition was not properly verified; and if so, what was its effect? On these preliminary issues the learned Tribunal came to the decision that there were certain defects in respect of essential particulars of some of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition as also in the verification of the petition. The learned Tribunal, however, directed the petition to be amended and the defects removed. As stated above, in the grounds of appeal the appellant has also assailed this order on the ground that the Tribunal had no power to order amendment in the absence of a formal application by the petitioner seeking permission to amend, but in view of a recent decision of this Bench holding that notwithstanding that there is no application asking for amendment of the election petition, it is open to the Tribunal itself to permit amendment, the learned counsel did not pursue his attack against the order dated 31-10-1957. He, however, did not give up this objection, but merely abstained from arguing the matter because of the view expressed by us on this point in the case of Balwant Rai Tayal v. Bishan Sarup etc. , F. A. O. No. 164 of 1958. ;