U.N.Sinha, J. - (1.)These three cases have been heard together and this judgment will govern all of them. The facts out of which these cases have arisen are as follows:-- In the year 1962 there was an election for the purpose of electing a member to the Bihar legislative Assembly from Ramnagar Assembly Constituency, in the district of Champaran. There were two competing candidates for this election, who were, Sri Narayan Bikram Shah, the appellant in Election Appeal No. 8 of 1963 and Sri Kedar Pandey, the appellant in Election Appeal No. 10 of 1963. The result of the election was declared on the 26th of February, 1962, and Sri Narayan Bikram Shah was declared to have been elected. On the nth of April, 1962, Sri Kedar Pandey, the defeated candidate, filed an election petition against Sri Narayan Bikram Shah, contending that the election of the latter should be declared void and set aside. It was also prayed that Sri Kedar Pandey may be declared duly elected in the same election. The substantial point taken by Sri Kedar Pandey in the election petition was to the effect-that Sri Narayan Bikram Shah was not qualified to be a candidate as he was not a citizen of India, and Article 173 of the Constitution of India stood in his way. According to Sri Kedar Pandey, Sri Narayan Bikram Shah, his parents and grand-parents were born in Nepal, and, therefore, on the date of the election, Sri Narayan Bikram Shah was not qualified to be chosen to fill the Assembly seat for which he had been declared to have been elected. According to Sri Kedar Pandey if Sri Narayan Bikram Shah had not illegally contested in the election, Sri Pandey would have been declared to have been elected. In reply to the election petition filed by Sri Kedar Pandey, a written statement was filed by Sri Narayan Bikram Shah, controverting the various allegations made. So far as the contentions raised in the written statement are relevant for the present investigation, the following may be mentioned It was stated in paragraphs 7 and 8, that the assertion that Sri Narayan Bikram Shah was not a citizen of India was false. Any disqualification under Article 173 of the Constitution of India was denied. In reply to the allegation that Sri Narayan Bikram Shah, his parents and grand parents were born in Nepal, it was stated that that was not admitted and the petitioner of the election petition was put to the strict proof of the same. According to Sri Narayan Bikram Shah, he was an Indian citizen and he was never a citizen of Nepal. It was also mentioned in the written statement that Sri Kedar Pandey was not entitled to be declared to have been duly elected in the election held in this case.
(2.)Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Election Tribunal, namely: 1. Is the election petition maintainable? 2. Is the election petition liable to be dismissed because of the non-compliance of Sections 81 and 82 of the R. P. Act? 3. Is the respondent a citizen of Nepal and not a citizen of India and so disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly? 4. Is the election of the respondent void? If so, is the petitioner entitled to be declared elected ? 5. Is the petitioner entitled to any other relief?
(3.)Issues Nos. 1 and 2 have been answered in favour of Sri Kedar Pandey. Under issues Nos. 3 and 4 it has been held that Sri Narayan Bikram Shah was a citizen of Nepal and not a citizen of India, and, therefore, he was not Qualified under Article 173(a) and was disqualified under Article 191(1)(d) of the Constitution of India for being chosen to fill a seat in the Bihar Legislative Assembly and, for being a member thereof. It has, therefore, been held that the election of Sri Narayan Bikram Shah was void. But under issue No. 4 it has also been held, against Sri Kedar Pandey, that, he was not entitled to be declared elected in the election in question. Sri Narayan Bikram Shah has, therefore, filed Election Appeal No. 8 of 1963, under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Sri Kedar Pandey has filed Election Appeal No. 10 of 1963.