text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
On the other side, the learned Attorney General for the 1st respondent attempted to reopen before us the question as to whether the petition was presented to the Election Commission by an authorised person, which as stated above, was found against him by a majority of the Tribunal. ARG |
The ground on which he attempted to reopen this question was that the finding was based on a wrong view as to the burden of proof. ARG |
We were not prepared, however, to permit this finding of fact to be reopened in this appeal on special leave, irrespective of the question whether the burden of proof was rightly laid on the petitioners. Ratio |
The only points, therefore, that have been argued before us are whether the view taken by the Tribunal with reference to the following questions, viz. (1) limitation, (2) joinder of parties, (3) verification, and (4) specification of particulars of corrupt practices in Schedule A attached to the petition, is correct, a... |
The questions may be taken up one after the other. Ratio |
LIMITATION:As stated above, the petition was filed on the 19th April, 1952, admittedly one day beyond time. Ratio |
On the 28th April, 1952, the petitioners filed also an application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for the same. Ratio |
In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof the circumstances under which the delay is said to have occurred were set out as follows: "3. Ratio |
The applicants were under the belief that Notice under Rule 113 of the Rules framed under the above Act was published on 5th April, 1952, in the official Gazette of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Ratio |
They felt therefore that their petition was duly presented within 14 days as prescribed by Rule 119. Ratio |
Applicants, however, learn that actually the Notice under Rule 113 was published in the Official Gazette of 4th April, 1952. Ratio |
It therefore appears that there was a delay of 433 one day in the representation of the election petition. Ratio |
This delay occurred under the following circumstances: 4. Ratio |
The applicants prepared their election petition on the 17th April, 1952. Ratio |
They sent the said petition with Shri P. B. Gole, Senior Advocate, Akola, with a written authority to present the petition through any person of his choice at Nagpur on the 18th April. Ratio |
They also sent with Shri Gole Rs. 1,000 for being deposited in the Government Treasury at Nagpur as required by section 117 of the Act and to obtain Treasury receipt for security of costs to be filed with the petition. Ratio |
The applicants were under the belief that an officer must have been appointed by the Election Commission under section 81 of the Act to whom election petitions could be represented for the State of Madhya Pradesh at Nagpur. Ratio |
Accordingly Shri Gole left Akola for Nagpur by the 1 Down Nagpur Mail, reaching Nagpur at about 9 30 A.M. on 18th April, 1952. Ratio |
Mr. Gole caused the deposit of Rs. 1,000 security for costs to be made in the Government Treasury at Nagpur through Mr. Sidhaye, Advocate, Nagpur, and obtained the necessary Government Treasury receipt on the 18th April, 1952. Ratio |
He then made enquiries about the officer who may have been appointed to receive the election petitions. Ratio |
He con sulted R. section Rangole, who was attached to the Election Office at Nagpur. Ratio |
On enquiries Shri Gole learnt that there was none at Nagpur, who was authorised to receive election petition under the Act. Ratio |
Under these circumstances Shri Gole booked a seat in the Night Plane for Delhi and flew to Delhi on the 18th and reached there on the morning on 19th April, 1952. Ratio |
On 19th April Shri Gole caused the petition to be presented to the Secretary to the Election Commission". Ratio |
The explanation thus furnished was accepted by the Election Commission as appears from the intimation to the petitioners by letter dated the 30th July, 1952. Ratio |
The Tribunal was of the opinion that notwithstanding the order of the Election Commission condoning the delay and admitting the petition, it was free to 434 reconsider the question by virtue of the powers vested in it under section 90(4) of the Act. Ratio |
In this view it went into the merits of the explanation furnished and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were negligent and that the delay, even of one day, could not be condoned. Ratio |
It accordingly held that the petition was liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Ratio |
Now, apart from the merits of the sufficiency of the cause for delay, the question as to whether, notwithstanding the condonation of the delay by the Election Commission., it was open to a Tribunal to reconsider the matter by virtue of section 90(4) of the Act, is now covered by the decision of this Court reported in D... |
It was therein held that it was not open to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in such a case. PRE |
The conclusion of the Tribunal, therefore, on this point cannot be maintained. Ratio |
The learned Attorney General attempted to argue that the decision of this Court referred to above was obiter as regards the legal point and required further consideration. ARG |
But we were not prepared to permit that question to be reopened. Ratio |
We were also not satisfied that there was any adequate reason for the Tribunal to interfere with the view taken by the Election Commission condoning the delay of one day on the explanation furnished to it. Ratio |
This explanation has not been found, even by the Tribunal, to be Ratio |
JOINDER OF PARTIES: The objection as to joinder of parties arises as follows. Ratio |
Three persons by name Shri Sohoni, Shri Kulkarni, and Shri Kothkar were nominated as candidates at the election. FAC |
Their nominations were found to be in order on scrutiny by the Returning Officer. FAC |
But within the time allowed, these three withdrew from the elections under section 37 of the Act. FAC |
The petitioners, while they impleaded as respondents the three unsuccessful candidates who went to the polls, did not implead these three persons. FAC |
It has been argued before us that this view is erroneous and that persons who filed their nominations and who withdrew from the contest within the prescribed time in spite of their nominations having been found to be in order on scrutiny by the Returning Officer, cannot be said to fall within the category of "candidate... |
In support of this contention two decisions Sitaram vs Yograjsing(1) and Sheo Kumar vs V. G. Oak(2) have been cited. Ratio |
These three decisions have treated the decision of the question as depending on a construction of the phrase "at the election" in section 82 of the Act. Ratio |
The Bombay and Allahabad cases hold that this phrase confines the necessary parties under this section to those who were candidates for the actual poll, while the Patna High Court takes the view that the phrase "at the election" has no such limiting significance. Ratio |
It appears to us to be unnecessary and academic to go into this judicial controversy having regard to the decision of this Court in Jagan Nath vs Jaswant Singh(4). Ratio |
If we were called upon to settle this controversy, we would prefer to base the decision not on any meticulous construction of the phrase "at the election" but on a comprehensive consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and of the rules framed thereunder and of the purpose, if any, of the requirement under se... |
We are, however, relieved from this, since it has been decided in Jagan Nath vs Jaswant Singh(4) that even if any of the necessary parties other than the returned candidate has not been (1) A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 293. Ratio |
(3) A.I.R. 1954 Patna 225. Ratio |
(2) A.I.R. 1953 All. 633. Ratio |
(4) ; 436 impleaded, the petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine on that sole ground but that it is a matter to be taken into consideration at the appropriate stage with reference to the final result of the case. Ratio |
In view of this ruling the decision of the Tribunal on this point also cannot be maintained. Ratio |
The relevant provision in the Civil Procedure Code referred to herein is Order VI, rule 15, clauses (2) and (3), which are as follows: "(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received an... |
(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed". STA |
In the present case the verification of the petition as well as the schedule of particulars of corrupt practices are each signed by both the petitioners and there is now no dispute about it. Ratio |
The verification clause in the petition is as follows: "The above named applicants hereby affirm that the contents of the above petition are true to information received from the press reports and several other electors and believed by them to be true. Ratio |
Signed and verified at Akola on The verification clause relating to the particulars of corrupt practices in Schedule A is as follows: "The above named applicants affirm that the contents in this schedule are true to information received and believed by us to be true. Ratio |
Signed and verified at Akolo, on 437 In the view of the Tribunal there were two defects in these verifications. Ratio |
They do not refer to any numbered paragraphs nor do they bear the dates on which they were signed. Ratio |
In the view of the Tribunal the petition was liable to dismissal for non compliance with the specific provision in the Act in this behalf. Ratio |
That the verification neither in the petition nor in the schedule of particulars bears any date is not disputed. Ratio |
But it is contended that the view taken by the Tribunal in so far as it was of the opinion that the verifications do not refer to any numbered para graphs is unsustainable. Ratio |
It is pointed out that the statements in the verification were clearly meant to convey that the various allegations in the petition and schedule were, in their entirety, based on information and belief. Ratio |
We agree with this contention. ARG |
It is to be noticed that a verified pleading is different from an affidavit which., by virtue of Order XIX, rule 3, is specifically required to be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove (except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted, provid... |
But there is notand in the nature of things there cannot be any such limitation for pleadings. Ratio |
Hence it became necessary in the verification of a pleading to demarcate clearly between the two. Ratio |
The allegations in the petition in this case purport to be based only on informa tion. Ratio |
Since the verification clauses refer to the entirety of the petition and the attached schedule, absence of enumeration of the various paragraphs therein as having been based on information cannot be considered to be a defect. Ratio |
The verifications are accordingly defective only as regards the requirement of the dates thereof. Ratio |
The question is whether the petition is liable to dismissal on this ground. Ratio |
Though there may be cases where the date of the pleading and the verification may be relevant and important, it would be a wrong exercise of discretionary power to dismiss 438 an application on the sole ground of absence of date of verification. Ratio |
In such a case the applicants should normally be called upon to remove the lacuna by adding a supplementary verification indicating the date of the original verification and the reason for the earlier omission. Ratio |
PARTICULARS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES: The objection is based on section 83(2) of the Act which is as follows: "The petition shall be accompanied by a list signed and verified in like manner setting forth full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possi... |
The objection is that the particulars of the instances furnished in Schedule A to the petition are all of them vague and not in compliance with the above provision. Ratio |
The list of particulars is as follows: " SCHEDULE "A". Ratio |
List of particulars of instances referred in the accompanying petition. Ratio |
That in the month of December, 1951, respondent No. 1 has been to the premises of Akola Shree Gurudwara, where the Local Sikh Community had assembled to listen to the recitation of the holy book 'Granth Saheb ' on the 7th day of the death of daughter of one Sardar. Ratio |
Suratsingb. Ratio |
At this meeting respondent No. 1 canvassed for votes for himself and paid Rs. 201/ , apparently as donation to the Gurudwara, but really as gift for inducing the Sikh Community in the Akola Constituency in general and the Sikhs assembled in particular to induce them to vote for himself at the ensuing election. Ratio |
Respondent No. 1 was guilty of bribery within the meaning of that term in section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. ' Similar instances of giving illegal gratifications for securing votes of respective groups are (a) Donation to Hkariharpeth Akhada; 439 (b) Payment to Panch bungalow Committee of Bhangis of O... |
(c) Donation to Bhaji Bazar Association. Ratio |
(d) Distribution of blankets and Saries and money to voters. Ratio |
At the instance of respondent No. I a meeting of workers in Berar Oil Industries a concern of Birla, was called by its manager on the eve of the election and they were threatened to vote for respondent No. 1 on pain of losing their service or suffer pecuniary loss, in case they did not vote for respondent No. 1. Ratio |
Respondent No. 1 caused groups and sections of castes and communities, such as Bohara, Lohars, Marwaries, Muslims, Rajasthanies, Bhangies, to issue appeals stating that resolutions were passed for voting for respondent No. 1, coercing the voters by threats, etc., to vote for respondent No. 1 and openly canvassing on co... |
Issuing pamphlets and handbills without names of printer or publisher. Ratio |
At the time of counting votes in Polling Station No. 53, several folded bundles amounting to about 20 in number, of ballot papers were found in the ballot box of respondent No. 1, when it was opened for counting votes. Ratio |
This was noted by the Returning Officer. Ratio |
Each bundle consisted three or more than three ballot papers, folded together. Ratio |
Obviously each of the bundle of these ballot papers were put in the ballot box by one person, as the ballot papers put in the ballot box by different voters could not automatically fold themselves into a compact bundle in the ballot box. Ratio |
The ballot papers issued to voters were not put in the box by the voters themselves, but were illegally brought back by the voters and handed over to persons working for and on behalf of respondent No. I on payment of illegal gratification. Ratio |
These ballot papers thus collected were bundled together 56 440 and put in the ballot box by persons working for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 by taking illegal gratifications. Ratio |
This was done on 31st December, 1951, at Chandur by persons with the connivance of respondent No. 1. 6. Ratio |
False personation of several dead voters and voters absent in Pakistan has taken place in Ward No. 12 and 15. 7. Ratio |
The respondent No. 1 resorted to false propaganda. Ratio |
His man announced on loud speakers from place to place that rival candidate Dr. Joglekar was of the caste and party of Godse, the murderer of M. Gandhi and a vote for him was a vote for Gandhi 's Murderer. Ratio |
Another false propaganda was that Dr. Joglekar was Mishra 's man, supported by Mishra 's money. Ratio |
Lectures for respondent No. 1 in public meetings, including respondent No. I have freely made these false defamatory and malicious statements against Dr. Joglekar, the rival candidate and thus prejudiced the prospects of Dr. Joglekar 's election. Ratio |
Personal character and conduct of Dr. Joglekar was also falsely attached, thus prejudicing his prospects of election. Ratio |
Voters were carried in hired carts at many polling stations, particularly at Kapshi Polling Station. Ratio |
This was arranged by persons working for and on behalf of respondent No. I at his expense and connivance. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.