N V L NARASIMHA RAO Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL RAJAHMUNDRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the concerned records leading to the order of the Election Tribunal, Rajahmundry, dated 28th October, 1957, passed in Election Petition No. 10 of 1955 refusing to set aside the election of the 2nd respondent and quash the said proceedings. General election to the Andhra Legislative Assembly for Guntur No. 1 Consstituency was held on 18th February, 1955. Besides the petitioner, there were four more candidates, viz., Messrs. Tellakula Jalayya, D. V. Apparao, M. A. Khader and T. Amruta Rao, who were duly nominated to contest the election. The petitioner represented the Praja Socialist party. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition was set up by the United Congress Front. The 3rd respondent is a nominee of the Communist party. Respondents 4 and 5 belonging respectively to Muslim and Christian communities contested the election as independent candidates. The polling in this constituency was held on 18th February, 1955 and the counting of the votes took place on 1st March, 1955 with the following result : Second respondent.. 13,431 votes Third respondent .. 11,90,8 Fourth resoondent.. 6,472 votes. Fifth respondent .. 418 Petitioner.. 9,139

(2.) The 2nd respondent having secured the largest number of votes was duly declared elected on 1st March, 1955 and the said declaration was published in the Gazette of Andhra, dated 7th March, 1955 under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951). The lodging of the return of election expenses by the 2nd respondent together with his declaration was published in the Gazette of Andhra dated 2nd June, 1955 and the scrutiny of the said return was granted on 6th June, 1955. Then, the petitioner filed Election Petition No. 10 of 1055 before the Election Tribunal under sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951) praying that the election of the 2nd respondent in this writ petition, Sri T. Jalayya, may be declared void. Several grounds were urged before the Tribunal in support of the petition to set aside the election of the 2nd respondent. It was urged that the 2nd respondent by himself or through his agents committed the corrupt practice of bribery in the form of paying and promising to pay large sums of money to individuals and associations offering house-sites and other kinds of gratification to a large number of voters to induce them to vote for him and also as a reward for having voted and for having procured votes for him. He entertained the electors with sweets and tea at various places. He induced the 4th respondent herein to stand for the election with a view to split the Muslim votes. It was also alleged in the petition that the 2nd respondent herein by himself and through his agents exercised undue influence and interfered with the free exercise of the electoral right of the electors. There was also an allegation about the publication of false statements relating to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election and that it actually resulted in a large number of electors being misled. It was also averred that the 2nd respondent and his agents procured vehicles for the conveyance of electors to the polling stations. One other allegation on which great stress was laid before the Tribunal relates to the return of election expenses lodged by the 2nd respondent which, according to the petitioner, is false in material particulars and the said return was ledged beyond the time prescribed by the Act and the rules. The third respondent in the writ petition, who got 11,998 votes, that is more votes than the petitioner, allowed the enquiry to proceed ex parte before the Tribunal The 5th respondent also was ex parte. The 4th respondent the Muslim candicate, denied the allegations made in the petition. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. By its order dated 28th October, 1957, the Tribunal after a consideration of the entire evidence oral and documentary, dismissed the Election Petition No. 10 of 1955. It is to quash that order that this writ petition is filed. The 2nd respondent, who was the successful candidate in the election, is the contesting respondent in this writ petition.

(3.) Before the Tribunal several issues were framed. They are as follows :- The Tribunal found all the issues against the petitioner. Election Petition No. 10 of 1955 was filed on 7th June, 1955. One of the points strongly urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal was not legally constituted and that therefore the order of the Tribunal is wholly void. It is necessary to set out a few facts to appreciate this contention.