HARISH CHMDRA BAJPAI Vs. TRILOKI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the election Tribunal, Faizabad, declaring the election appellants to the legislative Assembly (Uttar Pradesh from the Lucknow Central Constituency, void under S. 100 (2) (b) of the Representation of the People Act No. XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Constituency is a double-member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the Scheduled Castes. The polling took place on 31-1-1952 and the two appellants were declared elected, they having secured the largest number of votes. On 10th June 1952, the respondent herein filed a petition under S. 81 of the Act alleging that the appe1lants had committed a number of corrupt practices, and prayed that the election might be declared wholly void.

(2.) The appellants filed written statements denying these allegations, and on the pleadings, issues were framed on 17th January 1953. Then followed quite a spate of proceedings, consisting of applications for framing of fresh issues, for better particulars and for amendment of the election petition, to which a more detailed reference will presently be made. As a result of these proceedings, it was not until September 1954, that the hearing of the petition began. On 23rd March 1955, the Tribunal delivered its judgment and by a majority, it set aside the election on two grounds (1) that the appellants had obtained the assistance of four village officers, Mukhias in furtherance of their election prospects and had thereby contravened S. 123 (8) of the Act; and (2) that the first appellant had employed for payment in connection with his election two persons in addition to the number permitted by R. 118 read with schedule VI, namely, Ganga Prasad and Vishwanath Pande, and had thereby infringed S. 123 (7)of the Act. Before us, the appellants dispute the correctness of the conclusions on both these points.

(3.) As regards the first point, the main contention of the appellants is that the charge that they had employed four Mukhias in furtherance of their election prospects was not pleaded in the petition as originally presented, and that it came in only by an amendment dated 28th November 1953, that the Tribunal had no power to order that amendment, and that accordingly the finding thereon should be disregarded. It is necessary for a correct appreciation of the contentions on either side to state the facts leading to this amendment.