K. KAMARAJA NADAR versus KUNJU THEVAR AND OTHERS

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

583

f

h

1958

d 1 h

The Erin Estate,

I11deed the course of conduct evidenced by these letters shows that Andiappa Pillai who holds the maximum number o indivi ua s ares as purported to act for Ga/ah. Ceylon the partnership and usually gave instructions in regard to the conduct and management of the firm's affairs. The Commissioner On the record we sec no trace of any protest against, of Income-Tax. or disagreement with, this cor!duct of Andiappa Pillai. Madras Besides, it was never suggested during the course of G . d -d k the enquiry before the Income-tax Officers that the a;en raga ar J. directions given by Andi11.ppa Pillai were not valid or effective and had not been agreed upon by the remain- ing partners. That is why we think this technical point raised by Mr. Kolah must fail.

v.

The result is the appeal fails and must be dismissed

with costs . •

Appeal disrnissed.

K. KAMARA.JA NADAR v. KUN JU TREV AH, AND OTHE1~S

(and connected appeals)

April 22.

(BHAGWATI, J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR JJ.)

Election Petition-Claim fvr seat-Candidate retiring from con test, whether a necessary party-vVithdrawal of claim for seat, if cures defect of parties-Provisions relating to security deposit, if mandatory-Representation of the People Act, I95I (43 of I95I), SS. 82 and IIJ.

There were seven candidates duly nominated for election, and four out of them withdrew their candidature by the due date. The names of the remaining three were placecl on t11e list of con testing candidates prepared by the Returning Officer under s. 38 of the Representation of the People Act, 195r. Out of the three candidates one Pillai retired from the contest under s. 55A(2) of the Act leaving the appellant and the second respondent to con test the• election. After the appellant was declared duly elected the first respondent, an elector in the constituency, filed an. election petition praying that the election of the appellant be declared void and further that the second respQndent be decl<JJ"ed

,

584

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

v.

1958

the second

The appellant and

duly elected. respondent were impleaded as parties to the petition but Pillai was not-.o J(amaraja Nadar impleaded. The appellant applied to the Election Tribunal to dismiss the election petition under s. 90(3) on the grounds (i) that J(itnju Thevar Pillai was a contesting candidate and the failure to join him as a .party amounted to a non-compliance with the provisions of s. 82 of the Act, and (ii) that the proper and complete head of account had not been mentioned in ,the treasury receipt by which the security deposit of Rs. r ,ooo had been made nor had the deposit been made in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission as laid down in s. rr7 of the Act. The first respondent also applied to the Tribunal for an amendment of the petition by deletion of the claim for the seat. The Tribunal rejected the applications for dismissal of the petition holding that Pillai was no longer a contesting candidate and it \vas not necessary to join him as a party to the petition, and that there was no defect in the treasury It also allowed the amendment prayed tor : receipt.

Held, that the election petition was liable to be diimissed under s. 90(3) for failure to implead Pillai as a party. A contest ing candidate V.'hose name was included in the list prepared under. s. 38 but who retired from the contest -under s. 55A(2) continued to be a contesting candidate for the purposes of the Act and it was incumbent upon the election petitioner under s. Sz to join him as a party to the election petition where a claim for the seat 'vas made, l''urther, the Tribunal had no power to grant an an1endn1ent, whether by withdr<il.\val or abandonment of a part of the clairr1 or otherwise, once an election petition had been pre sented to the Election Comn1ission clai1ning the further declara tion for the seat. The defect of non-joinder could not be cured by such amendment.

Htld, further, that there \vas sufficient compliance \vith the provisions of s. 117 aud the election petition could not be dis missed on the ground of failure to comply therewith. The words "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission " used in s. r 17 were directory and not mandatory in their character and no literal compliance \vith the terms of s. 117 v"as necessary. \Vhat \Vas of the essence of the provisions of s. 117 \vas that the receipt should show or it should be proved by evidence led before the Tribunal that the deposit was at the disposal of the Election Commission to be utilised by it in the manner authorised by la\v and was under-its control.and payable to the Election Commis sion or to. any other person duly authorised by it to receive the same_.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.

763 and 764 of 1957 and 48 of 1958.

•

Appeal (No. 763) from the judgment and order dated SC'Jptember 24, _ 1957, of the l\fadras High Court in

•

S.C.R..

SUPR.EME OOUR.T REPORTS

. 585

Writ Petitions Nos. 531 and 532of 1957. Appeal (No. 764) from the judgment and order dated September I< 24, 1957, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 573 and 574 of 1957. Appeal (No. 48) by special leave from the judgnient and order dated September 9, 1957, of the Patna High Court in M. J.C. No. 480 of 1957.

r95B

.-.. - Nd

0

amaia~." I<u11ju Thevar

ar

M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, M. K. Narnbiar and S. N. Andley, for the· appellant in C. A. No. 763.

.

P. Ram Reddy, for the appellant in C. A. No. 764. Purshottam Tric111ndas and S. P. Varma, for

the appellant in C. A. No. 48 and intervener in C. A. No. 763.

A.• V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, fm~ respondent No. 1 in C. A. No. 763. R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalalcrishnan, for res

pondent No. I in C. A. No. 764.

R. Patnaik, for respondent No. 2 in C. A. No. 48. JYI. C. Setalvad, Attorney,General for India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and J. B: Dada chanji, for Y. B. Chavan (Intervener in C. A. No. 'i63). Y. Kumar, for K. P. Pawar (Intervener in C. A. No.

763).

R. Patnaik, for Ibrahim Ansari (Intervener in C.A.

No. 763).

1958. April 22. The Judgment of the Court was

delivered by

BHAGWA'fl J.-These Civil Appeals raise a common question of law, viz., the interpretation of SS. 82 and 117 of the Representation of the Peo~Jle Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") and can be dis- posed of by a common judgment.

.

Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1957: The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1957 is the Chief Minister of Madi-as and was declared duly elected to the Madr~s State Legislative Asse.r':nbly at an election held ·on Mairch 4, 195?, from the ~athur Con~tituency ha¥ing

. .

Bliagwati J.

586

SUPHEME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

v.

i95B

got 36,400 valid votes an against 31,683 valid votes J<amaraja Nadar secured by his rival, the respondent No. 2 in the peti- tion. There had been seven candidates duly nominat- J<unju Thcv"r ed for· election in that constituency out of whom 4 had withdrawn their candidature by February 4, 1957, /Jhagwai; f. which was the last date for such withdrawal. Three candidates were thus left in the field, the appellan.t, the 2nd respondent and one Snndararaja Pillai and their names were placed in the list of contesting candi dates and published by the Retnrning Officer under s. :38 of the Act. Pillai retired from the contest on February 21, 1957, under s. 55A(2) of the Act, thus leaving the appellant and the 2nd respondent the only two contestants for the seat.

r

r

After the appellant was declared duly elected, the first respondent who was an elector in the said cohsti tuency filed an election petition, being Election Peti tion No. 147 of 1957, impleading the appe1lant and to that the 2nd r·espondent as party respondents petition and prayed that the election of the appellant from Sathnr Constituency be declared void and further tlrnt the 2nd respondent be decbred duly elected.

As Pillai who had retired from the contest on Febru ary 21, 1957, was not impleaded as a party respondent to this petition an objection was raised by the Election C'9mmission on the score of his non-joinder. A notice was issued to the 1st respondent on May 1, 1957, calling upon him to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed summarily f01~ non-joinder of one of the necessary parties and on May 10, Hl57, the Election Commission by its order stated th11t it would be for the Election Tribnual to decide at tho Trial after hearing the parties if the issue of the non-joindcr of Pillai as a respondent necessarily affected the pmyer seeking that the 2nd respondent Le declared duly elected. The Election Commission also discovered a defect in the deposit of Hs. 1,000 inasmuch as the proper and complete head of account Imel not been mentioned in the treasury receipt nor had the d~osit Leen made in favour of the Soorebwv, Election Com mission, as laid down in i;. 117 of the Act. This que~tion ~ls() wa5 kit to th9 ·Tribunal to decide after

..

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT Rl~POHTS

587

hearing the parties, if the defect should be treated as fatal o.r one that could be cured by fresh deposit ~r. Kamaraja Nadar otherwise so aa to secure the costs of the appellant if eventually awarded to him. The Election Commission admitted the petition and a copy of the petition was published in the official gazette as requir<;id under s. 86(1) of the Act. It was also served on the appel- la0nt and the petition ·was referred to the Election Tri- bunal for trial.

J\1111J11 Thevar

Bhagwilli J.

v.

'9

58

On June 22, 1957, the appellant filed I. A. No. 1 of

19;57 before the Election Tribunal asking for a dismis sal of the petition as required by s. 90 (3) of the Act on the ground that the respondent had failed to join Pillai, who was also a contesting candidate, as a res pondent. On the same day the appellant filed another application being I. A. No. 2 of 1957, before the Elec tion Tribunal similarly asking for the dismis:>al of the petition inasmuch as the proper and complete head of account had not been mentioned in the treasury receipt which the 1st respondent had sent to the Elec tion Commission and the deposit also had not been made in the name of the Secretarv, Election Commis sion, as clearly and strictly requir°0d under s. 117 of the Act. The first respondent filed before the Election Tribunal I. A. No. 3 of lf)57 asking for an amendment of the petition by deleting paragraph 7 A :-" the second respondent would have obtained more votes if the first respondent had nqt resorted to such corrupt practices in the said election " and also a portion of the prayer which asked for the following relief: "and further it is also prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare the second respondent as a duly elected candidate in the election. " All these applications came up for hearing and final disposal before the Election Tribunal on July 5, 1957.

Evidence was led by the first respondei1t in connec

tion with the treasury receipt and K. Nataraj~t lHudaliar, head Accountant in-cfaargo of the Madurai Taluk Sub-Treasury, gave evidence to the effect that the 3ub-Treasury clerk had filled up the hrad of the account in the Chalan, that the Treasury Officer woulcl make necessary entries in the Chittas and carry for •

•

I

•

5SS

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

'

r958

ward the amounts to the respective heads of accounts , that the amount was kept in the Election Revenue Kama,.~~ Nadar deposit and could not be disposed of without the Elec tion Commission's order and· that the monev was at I<«nju Thevur the disposal of the Election Commission. On cross- examination by the Election Tribunal he further stated that the amount of Rs. 1,000 was entered in the deposit register as security deposit for costs of Elec tion Petitfon, that the Election Commission could draw the money and any one authorized by the Election Commission could also draw the same.

Bhaewari J.

r

The Election Tribnnal passed a common order on July 5, 1957. It dismissed I. A. No. 1 of 1957 being of the opinion that the said Pillai was no longer a con testing candidate after his retirement from the ·contest on ]'ebruary 21, 1957. As regards I. A. No. 2 of Ul57, it held that there was no defect in the matter of the head of accounts and was further of opinion that the non-mention of the fact that the deposit was made in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission was immaterial in that it was made and taken to have been made in favour of the Election Commission at whose disposal the fund was placed. There was there fore sufficient compliance with the requirements of s~ 117 of the Act and it accordingly dismissed the application. I. A. No. 3 of 1957 which asked for cer tain amendments of the petition was allowed, the Election Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the first respondent never meant to include the por tions sought to be deleted in the petition the same having been so included by reason of an accidental mistake by his legal ad vise rs.

0

On July 14, 1957, the appellant filed two Writ Peti tions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras ; Writ Petition No. 531 of 1957 for the issue of a writ of Writ Petition No. 532 of 1957 for the Certiorari and issue of a writ of Prohibition for quashing the com mon order passed by the Election Tribunal in I. A. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 1957 and prohibiting the Election Tribunal from holding any inquiry into the petition. T·hese writ petitions came up for hearing before the High Court along with two other writ petitions being

.

.

.

•

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

589

writ petitions Nos. 573of1957 and 574 of 1957 (herein- after referred to) and were all dismissed by it by a I< d common Judgment dehvere on eptem er 24, 1

957 .

S

b

.

.

.

r95S -.- ,, d

amara;a .n a ar

v.

The appellant thereafter applied for and obtained Kunju Thevar

Bhagwati J.

from the High Court a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution to appeal to this Court against the decision in 'Vrit Petitions Nos. 531of1957 and 532 of 1957 and hence Civil"Appeal No. 763of1957. Civil Appeal. No. 764 of 1957.

Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1957 is concerned only with s. 82 of the Act and the appellant therein was declared duly elected to the Madras State Legislative Assembly from the Single M~mber Salem (1) constituency on March 8, 1957, having obtained 24,\:120 valid votes as against 24,713 valid votes obtairied by his rival the first r~spondent. There were 10 candidates who had been duly nominated for election; but 5 of them with drew their candidature on February 5, 1957, which was the last date for such withdrawal and two retired before February 23, 1957. Thus only three candidates were left, viz., the appellant, the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent in the appeal. When the list of contesting candidates was prepared and published by the Returning Officer under s. 38 of the Act there were on that list besides these, two more candidates who had retired from the contest between February 5, 1957, and :February 23, 1957. On April 18, 1~57, the first respondent who was a defeated candidate filed an Election Petition, being Election Petition No. 74 of 1957, containing two prayers:- (1) that the election of the appellant be set aside and (2) that he be declared duly elected under s. 101 of the Act inasmuch as he would have obtained the majority of the valid votes but for the corrupt practices committed by the appellant and others. The two candidates who had betin included by the Returning Officer in the list of contesting candi dates but had subsequently retired from the contest were not made party respondents to this petition and on April 25, 1957, a notice was issued by the Election Commission to the first respondent calling upon him to

'75

•

'

590

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[19'59]

I958 -

Kamaraja Nadar • • ·d

Kunjuv.Th,var

Bhagwati J.

f

•

1

A

f h

show cause by May 6, 1957, as to why his petition should not be dismissed summarily for such non- n exp ana- iom er o two o t e necessary parties. tion was rendered by the first respondent on May 2, 1957, but the Election Commission appears to have referred the decision of this question to the Election Tribunal appointed by it and on June 24, 1957, the appellant filed before the Election Tribunal an appl!\ca tion being I. A. No. 103 of 1957 asking the Tribunal to dismiss the said petition as required by s. 90(3) of the Act; The Election Tribunal passed an order on this application on July 13, 1957, holding that the said two candidates had ceased to be contesting candi dates within the meaning of that -term as used in s. 82 of the Act on their retirement from the contest and that the petition as framed was maintainable. •

.The appellant thereupon filed two writ petitions being Writ Petitions Nos. 573 of1957 and 574 of 1957 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, one for a ·writ of certiorari and the other for a writ of Prohibi tion asking respectively that the said order of the Election Tribunal be quashed and the Tribunal be prohibited from proceeding with the enquiry in the Election Petition No. 74 of 1957. These two writ petitions came up for hearing before the High Court on September 24, 1957, along with Writ Petitions Nos; 531 of 1957 and 532 of 1957 aforementioned and by a common judgment· bearing the said date the High Court dismissed the same. The appellant was granted a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Con stitution against this decision and that is how Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1957 has come before us. Civil Appeal:No. 48 of 1958.

The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1958 is only concerned with s. 117 of the Act. He was declared duly .elected to the House of the People from Ranchi East reserved constituency on March 15, 1957, .having secured 39,025 votes as against the 2nd respondent who secured only 36,785 votes. On April 27, 1957, the 2nd respondent filed an election petition being Election Petition No .. 341 of 1957 against the appellant praying •

r

f

~

SUPREME· COURT REPORTS

591

Ig58

-.- "' d amara~~ ' a ar I<unju. Thevar.

Bhagwati J.

that; his election tm the H0use of the. People be declar- ed void and that . the 2nd respondent oo declared to K ha V·e beewduly elected from : the said constituency. Alt the contesting candidates were made party respon- dents to .that-petition; but it. appears .that the 2nd responcilent ·encfosed with the petition a government treasury receipt showing a deposit of Rs.' 1,000. by him in.the StaterBank of,India, Ranchi Branch, as-security . .for: the costs of the petition which did· not mention that it had been made "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission ".'He had merely written in the Chalan the w<:>rds "'security for the costs of the Elec tion Retition, .Ranchi East Parliamentary· Constitu ency". On May 14, 1957, the Election C(j)mmission made an order :admittingi the. petition but on the. ques tion whether the defect :in the deposit was fataLor. may Se cured, e.·.g., byia fresh deposit or otherwise so as· to safeguard: the appellants' right to costs, if any, awardediin his favour, it reserved. the same for decision by the Election .Tribunal. On July :31, 1957, the appellant filed.:a:petition before the Election .Tribunal ulilder s. 90(3) of the. Act , urgin'g, that the omission.of the words " in favour of the, Seeretar.y to the Election Commission " from the' Chalan was.fatal..and that the petition be. dismissed. He also· urged that this petition sh(j)uld be heard ·.and . disposed of before·any ,further hearing of the Election Petition ·took place. :The: preliminary objection was accordingly heard on August 26 and .27, 1957,.and by its ;(j)rder datetl .August 31, 1957 ~·the ,Election Tribunal.e.xpressed:_the ·opinion that the matter was ;U(}t.free from dcmbt. andrth.e .Election Tribunal being an Ad Hoc body, it was essential that. it.should de.cide the case. as a·w110le.•and not· piecemeal, inasmuchJas there·was-no.easy provision for :remand ifjts view was not accepted by 1 the appellate authority. ']he EleGtion Tribunal therefore ·did no\ considar it proper to give its decision· on the. preliminary objectfrm atithat stage and1ordered'.that the trial of the :Election · · Petition do proceed. Theo appellant .thereafter;on. September 6, 1957, filed a writ 1petition1under .'Ai't. 226 Of ,tlie· Constitution in. theJHigh Court:of J.udicature at Patna.being lVI. J. 0 •

· ·

·

·

•

592

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

.

I95B

Bhagwati J.

No. 480 of 1957 asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal and also a writ of Kamaraja NadaY Prohibition to stop the continuance of the proceedings Kunjuv.Thevar before the Election Tribunal. This petition was dis- missed by the High Court on September 9, 1957, as the High Court thought that the matter could be decided at the time of the hearing of the Election Peti tion itself. The appellant thereafter a pp lied for and obtained on December 16, 1957, from this Court special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the said order of the High Court and that is how Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1958 is before us.

The two sections of the Act which fall to be con

strued by us are :

Section 82. " Parties to the petition: A petitioner

shall join as respondents to his petition :-

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claimfog a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declara tion that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates ; and

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations

of any corrupt practice are made in the ,petition."

Section 117. " Deposit of Security: The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of one thousand rupees has been made by him either in a Government Trea sury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as security for the costs of the petition."

The main question for our determination is what is the exact connotation of the expression " contesting _ candidate " in s. 82 and whether a candidate whose name was included in the list of contesting candidates published by the Returning Officer under s. 38 but who retired form the contest under s. 55A(2) is included in that expression.

.

It .will be helpful in this context to survey the seheme of the Act in regard to the conduct of elections, contained in Part V of the Act. Under s. 30 a_s soon

•

•

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

593

r95B -

Bhagwati J.

as the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members is issued, the Elec'tion Commis- sion is to appoint, (1) the last date for making nomi- Kamara~~ Nadar nations, (2) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, Kunju Tllevar (3) the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures, (4) the date or dates on which a poll shall, if necessary, be taken, and (5) the date before which the election is to•be completed. A candidate for electiop. has to be validly nominated to start with and after. such nomi- nations are made the Returning Officer is to hold a the appointed day. scrutiny of nominations on Immediately after all the nomination papers have been scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded by the Returning Officer, he ' is to prepare a list of validly nominated candidates and affix jt to his notice board. Any of these candidates may, however, withdraw his candidature on or before the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures and the Returning Officer is enjoined on receiving a notice ofwithdrawal to cause the same to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office. Section 38 provides that immediately after the expiry of the period within which. candidatures may be withdrawn as aforesaid the returning officer is to prepare and publish a list of contesting· candidates, that is to say, candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated candi dates and who have not withdrawn their candidatures within the said period. Section 52 provides for the consequences of death of a candidate before the poll and .says that if a contesting candidate dies and a report of his death is received before the commence ment of the poll, the returning officer upon being satis fied of the fact of the death is to countermand the poll and thereupon all proce~dings with reference to the . . election are to commence anew in all resp~cts as if for a new election. There are however two provisos to this section: (1) that no further nomination is' necessary in the case of a person who was a contesting candidate at the time of the countermanding of the poll and (2) that no pe~on who has given a notice of withdrawal of his candidature under s. 37(1) or a notice of retirement· from the contest under s. 55A(2) before the counter- •

•

I958 - · v.

1<u.,araja Nadar ·

Kunju Thovar

!lhagwati J.

594

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959)

d

S

"b

53

prescn e

· ect1ons

d 4 an 5

mantling of the poll is ,ineligible for being nominated as a candidate for the election aner such countermand- h t e proce ure mg. in contested and uncontested elections. If the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled a poll is to be taken ; if the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the, returning officer is to forthwith declare itll such candidates to be duly elected to fill these seats and if the number of such candidates is less than the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer is to forthwith declare all such candidates to be elected and the Election Commission is to call upon the consti tuency to elect a person or persons to fill the remaining seat or seats. Section 55A provides for retirement from contest at elections in Parliamentary and Assem bly constituencies, and the consequences thereof. Under s. 55A(2) a contesting candidate may retire from the contest by a notice in the prescribed form deliv<')red in the manner therein specified and the returning officer upon receiving . such notice of retirement is to cause a copy thereof to be affixed to his notice board and also to be published in the manner prescribed. Sub-section 5 enacts a legal fiction. It states that any person who has given a notice of retirement under sub-s. 2 shall thereafter be deemed not to be a contest ing candidate for the purposes of s. 52. Sub-sections 6 and 7 provide for ·the consequences of such retirement on the poll. Before .such retirement the list of contest ing candidates prepared by the returning officer under s. 38 is to determine whether there should be a poll or not. Sections 53 and 54 of the Act . provide for all possibilities b.ut. if by.reason of the number of contesting candidates being more than.the number of seats to be filled. a poll has to be taken. and one or more of such contesting candidates retire before the commencement of the poll leaving in the field only such number of candidates as is equal to the number of seats to. be filled, sub-ss. 6 and .7 provide that the returning officer is to forthwith declare all the -remaining con1'esting ·candidates to be duly elected to. fill those seats and douritermand the, poll.

•

•

'S:C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

59'5

a ar

.

1

.

.

.

_ b

Bltagwati J.

z958 -.- N d /(arnara1a v.

Their follows· Part VI . which deals with disputes regarding elections. SectiNa: 80 provides that no elec- . . . t10n is to be called m question except y an e ect10n petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Kunju Thevar this part; Under s. 81 an election rpetition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in :s. 100(1) 'and s. 101 to the Election Commission by any candidate at such election or ·any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election·of 1th'e returned candi- date. Section 82 prescribes who are the necessary parties t© such petition. The petitioner may merely claim a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates· is void. If he does so he must join as respondents to his petition all the. returned candidates and any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are If, however, in addition to made in the petition. claiming· such a declaration the petitioner claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candi- date has been duly elected, an .the contesting candi- dates other than the petitioner; and· any other can- didate against whom allegations of corrupt practices are made in the petition must be joined as respondents to that petition. Section 84 provides for the reliefs that may be claimed by the petitioner. It states that in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any· of the returned candidates is void, the peti tioner•may daim a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. This is really the foundation of the provisions contained in s. 82(a) of the Act which prescribes who are the neces- sary parties to such a petition. Section 85 enjoins the Election Commission to dismiss the petitioh if the pro- visions of s. 81 or s. 82 or s. 117 have HC4t been compli- ed with provided, however, that the petition is not to be dismissed without giving the petitioner an oppor- tunity of being heard. Section 90 prescribes the pro- cedure to be followed by the Election Tribunal and s. 9()(3) enjoins. the Tribunal . to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions 6f ss. 81, 82- or .117, notwithstanding that it has not been

•

•

•

'

596

S-CPREME COURT REPORTS

[1059]

dismissed by the Election Commission under s. 85. x958 -,-N d Section 117 refers to the deposit of security by the h. amam~~ a " ' petitioner for the costs of the petition, and has already /{unju Theuar been set out above.

Bhagw.i; J.

It is clear from the above that the procedure for elections has been thought out with meticulous detail and all the steps from the issue ·of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members up to the publication of the results of elec tions are laid down therein.

Article 329(b) of the·Constitution provid~s that no election to either House of Parliament or to the Houses· or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition pre sented to such 11,uthority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under 11,ny faw made bY. the appropriate Legislature, and Part VI of the Act enacts provisions for disputes regarding elections. The orders which can be passed by the Election Tribunal at the conclusion of the Trial of an election petition are set out in section 98 of the Act, viz., (a) dismissing the election petition; or (b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void ; or ( c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned can didates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. Under s. 99 power is also given to the Election Tribunal to make an order, where any charge is m11,de in the petition of any corrupt practice having been committed at the election, reaording (i) a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been com mitted by, or with the consent of, any candidate or his agent at the election, and the nature of that corrupt practice ; and (ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have been pro ved at the trial to have been guilty of m1y corrupt practice and the nature of that practice. These provisions· go to show that " an election con test is not' an action at law ·or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the court possesses no common• law power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •

•

0

•

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

, It is always to be borne in mind that though the election of successful candidate is not to be lightly K interfered with, one of the essentials of that law is als'o to safeguard the purity of the election process and also J(unju Thev.ar to see that the people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by corrupt practices." (Per Mahajan C. J. in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh (1)).

Bhagwati J.

I958

- . -

v.

amara;a Nadar

To the ·same effect are the observations in A. Sree

nivasan v. Election Tribunal, Madras('):

"An election petition is not a matter in which the interested. are candidates who strove only persons against each other at the elections. The public also are substantially interested in it and this is not merely in the sense that an election has.news value. An elec tion is an essential part of the democratic process. The cit,izent at large have an interest in seeing and they are justified in insisting that all elections are fair and free arid not vitiated by corrupt or illegal practices. In a civil action the only persons who are interested are the i1idividuals arrayed as plaintiffs or defendants but that is not so in an election petition."

In the Tipperary Case (3) Morris J. expressed him

self as follows :

" It was strongly urged that a petition isl a mere cause in this Court, and that as an ordinarf cause could not be instituted against a dead person, by analogy a petition could not be lodged seeking to set I consider this aside the return of a deceased person. is a fallacious analogy, because a petition i:s not a suit between two persons, but is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal party interested."

The process of election starts from the issue of a notification calling upon a constituency to· elect a member or members. The nomination papers filed by . the appointed date are scrutinized by the returning officer and a list of validly nominated candidates is prepared. When. such a list is prepared a stage is reached when the whole constituency knows who are the · valwly nominated candidates standing for tire

(1) [1954] S.C.R. 892, 895. (3) (1875) 3 O'M. & H. 19, 25. _'16

(2) (1955) II E.L.R. 278, 29J.·

•

•

598.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959)

Ka1naraja /\1adar v.

r95S

Bhagwah J.

election. It very often happens that a particular party in order to a void the possibility of the nomination papers of its members being rejected by the returning Kimju Theva, officer and finding itself in a difficulty if no validly nominated candidate or candidates of its own persua- sion are left in the field nominates m·ore candidates than what it would othenvise put up for the electi<;m; if the nomination papers of these candidates put for ward by it are accepted by the returning officer it would find itself in a predicament where the votes which it may canvass in its favour may be divided between the candidates sponsored by it when the poll is taken. In order to avoid such a situation a provision is made for: the withdrawal of candidatures by the validly ·nominated candidates. A candidate who has been validly nominated nrny also, after the list-of the validly nominated candidates is published, re-assess his prospects at the election and may think it worth his while to withdraw his candidature and retire from the field. He may do it sometimes to save his deposit. from being forfeited or from v;i,rious other motives which it is unnecessary to discuss; but a locus poeni tenti;i,e is given to him to withdraw ':iis candidature within thf) time prescribed for the same and if such notice of withdrawal is given by any candidate, the returning officer is to cause such notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office. After this date has passed it is definitely known,who are the candi dates validly nominated as such and who wish to con test the election. These candidates who survive the date of the withdrawal of candidatures are descril;>ed in s. 38 as contesting candidates, that is to say, candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated can didates and who have not withdrawn their candida tures withil'l the said period. A list of the contesting ;i,nd candidates is immediately thereafter prepared publishe'd by the returning officer. That list contains the names of the contesting candidates in alphabetical order and the ;i,ddresses of the contE;sting candic!ates as . given in the nomination papers together with such other. particulars as may be prescribed. Form 7 A in ~ooedule ~o tho Representation of the People (Conduct

•

•

'

•

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

599

•

r958 -.-

Bhagwati J.

v. J{u,njn Thevar

of Eleptions and Election Petitions) Rules, 1956, indi- . catesihow the list of contesting candidates is prepared ~· by the returning officer and it mentions among other l\amara;a Nadar things : " The poll will be taken between the ho.urs of ............ and ............ on .... ' ....... (date or dates). Postal ballot papers must reach the undersigned before 5 p.m. on ........ ; ... (date). Place ............ Date ............ Return- ing Officer." This is of cqurse the normal procedure when a poll has to be taken.· Sections 53 and 54, however, work out the various situations which may develop having regard to the number of contesting candidates in relation to the number of seats to be filled. If the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled, then and then only a poll has to be taken. If, however, the number of such. candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled or is less than the number of seats to be filled, the list of contesting candidates need not mention the above particulars as regards the poll being taken and the postal ballot papers reaching the returning officer at the time or on the days therein specified. The returning officer then forth with declares all such con- testing candidates duly elected to fill those seat:;. The Election Commission no doubt in the latter event has to call upon the constituency to elect a person or persons to fill the remaining seat or seats; but that is a separate election. 1'he process of election which has started with the issue of notification calling upon the constituency to elect a member or members, comes to an end. It is only}in those cases where the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled that the poll becomes necessary and the process of election continues. 1'he list of contesting candidates prepared by the returning officer is affixed in some conspicuous place in his offic~ and a copy thereof is supplied to each one of the contesting candi- dates .or his agent and the list of contesting candidates is also published by the returning officer in the official gazette. This procedure really .declares not only to the contesting candidates but also to the whole ·con- stituency, who are the contesting candidates at tht:i election and who will go to the poll. These contesting

.

.

.

•

600

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

r958 -

a

candidates within the phraseology which has been used in s. 38 are candidates who were included in the list of

Kamara~~ Na ar validly nominated candidates and who have not with Kunju Thevar drawn their candidatures within the period prescribed for such withdrawal. These are the contesting candi dates within the meaning of that term as used in the Act aud they are normally expected to go to the poll.

Bhagwati J.

·

•

If any of such candidates dies and the report of his death is received before the commencement of the poll, the returning officer upon being satisfied of the death of such candidate is bound to countermand the poll and report the fact to the Election Commission and also to the appropriate authority. The process of · election here again comes to an end and proceedings with reference to the election are to commence .anew in all respects as if for a new election including the nominations of candidates for such election. In that event, it is provided that in the case of a candidate who was a contesting candidate at the time of the countermanding of the poll no further nomination shall be necessary. A contesting candidate was neces sarily a validly nominated candidate and his nomina tion would continue as such. A candidate may, how ever, have given notice of withdrawal of his candi dature under s. 37 and he mav have thus retired from ·the field. He might have so ~ithdrawn in favour of the candidate since deceased because he realised that his prospects at the election were meagre as compared ' with those of the deceased or for any reason whatever. The death of the deceased would however create a situa tion where the candidate who had thus given notice of withdrawal of his candidature might think better of his prospects and might just as well on reconsidera tion like to pontest the election again. He would in that event be entitled to be nominated as a candidate for the election after such countermanding and s. 52 declares that such a person shall be eligible for being nominated as a candidate for such election.

•

•

The same

ratio would apply also to a contesting ·candidate who has given notice of his retirement from the cont~st u11der s. 55A (2). Such a person

•

•

.

. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

S.C.R.

601

I958 · --

might have retired from the contest on a re-appraise- ment of his prospects at the election as compared witl;i those of the deceased contesting candidate. I<amaraja Nadar When death removed that contesting candidate from Runjztv.Thevar the field, a person who had given notice of retirement from the contest as aforesaid may as well re-consider his position and feel that as compared with the other surviving candidates he would have fair prospects of success at the election and if· an election is held after the countermanding of the poll by the returning officer, he might just as well put f9rward his candida- ture and it is provided that in. that event he shall not be ineligible for being nominated as a candidate for election after such countermanding ; and there is perfectly good reason for the same, because otherwise, withJ:irawal or retirement might possibly be considered a disqualification or refusal to seek election.

Bhagwati J.

' ..

This brings us to the provisions as to retirement from contest under s. 55A. A candidate might not have withdrawn his candidature within the period prescribed and his name might have been included in the list of contesting candidates published by the returning officer under s. 38. Being thus a contesting candidate dulv declared as such he would be entitled to go to the po'n. He may, however, as a result of the election campaign find himself in the predicament that his prospects at the election are meagre and he might even have to face the situation of having to forfeit his security deposit if he went to the poll. There may be a number of motives operating in his mind which it is not necessary to discuss and he may just as well withdraw his candidature and retire from the field. A locus poenitentiae is therefore given to him under s. 55A to retire from the contest by giving notice in the prescribed form which has tQ be delivered to the returning officer on any day not later than 10 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. If a candidate thus retires from the contest, he decides not to go to the poll and the provision is made in the rules• for the correction of the list of contesting candidates so that no elector shall in the absence ol' necessa.ry information waste his vote upon him. A

.

.

.

. •

602

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959)

,

1958

copy of such notice is to be affixed by the returning officer to his notice board and in the polling station Ka,,,arn~~ '' adar and each of the remaining contesting candidates or Kirnja Thevar his agent is to be supplied with such copy and the notice has also got to be published in the official gazette.

l3hugwati J.

Such retirement from contest might result in the number of remaining contesting candidates bccomillg cc11ml to the ninnber of seats to be filled ands. 55A (6) and (7) work out the situation as it would then obtain with reference to ss. 53 and 54 and provide that in that event the returning officer is to forth with declare ouch candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats and conntermn,nd the poll-a fresh election being neeessnry only in the event of filling the remain- ing seat or settts, if any.

•

•

to

the nppropriate :wthority. Provision

If, however, a poll has to be taken under s. 53(1) in spite 'of the retirement of a contesting candidate or candid<ttes from contest as aforesaid the process of election continues in spite of sue h retirement and the question may arise as to what would happen if any of the contesting candidates who has thus retired dies before the commcnccrnent of the poll. If there was nothing more s. 52 would apply and the retuming officer upon being satisfied of the fact of the dcnth of the c1tndidate would have to counternrnnd the poll and report the fact to the Election Commission and also is therefore made in s. 55A (5) that ttny . person who has given n notice of retirement under s. 5.5A (2) is deemed not to be n contesting candidate for the purposes of s. 52. This is >t deeming provision and creates a leg1il fiction. The effect of such a lcga.I fictioh however is that a position which otherwise would not vbtain is deemed to obtain under those circumstances. Unless a ·contesting candidnte who had thus retired from the contest continued to be a contesting ca.ndidate for the purposes of election nnd the effect of the death of such contesting ca11didate . was as contemplated in s. 52, it would not have been It is bectwse found necessary to enact s. 55A (5). sullh a c~iitcsting cnndicla.te who retires from the

•

•

'

(

r958 . Kamara1a Nadar v.

I<unju Thevar

Bhngwill'i J.

S.C.R.

SUPREME COUR.T REPORTS

G0:3

-

·

.

.

,

.

included in

contest under s. 55A (2) continues to be a. contesting candidate for the purposes of election that it has been considered necm;sary to provide for the consequence of his death and to exclude snch a candidate from the category of contesting candidates within the meaning of the term as used in s. :38 of the Act, that is to say, candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated candidates and who had not withdrawn their candidature within the period prcscribe(l and who had been tho list of candidates prepared and published by the returning officer in the manner prescribed. This provision, thereforr, warrants the conclusion that a contesting candidate whose name was included in the list under s. 38 but who retires from the contest under s. 55A (2) continues to be a.contesting candidate for the purposes of the A0t though by reason of such retirement it would be unnecessa-i:y fo1· the constituency to cast its votes in his favour at the poll. Such a candidate continues to he contesting candidate for the purposes of the Act, notwithstanding his retirement from the contest undei' s. 55A (2).

When wr come to the provisions of Part VI of the Act relating to disputes regarding elections, we find that there is no definition given in s. 79 of the expres sion " contesting candidate ", though there are defini tions of" candidate" and " returned candidate " to be found therein. An election petition calling in question any election can be presented by any candidate at such election or any elector on one or more of the grounds specified in ss. 100 (i) and 101 to the Election Commission and a petitioner in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate or candidates may further claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been .duly elected. Where the petitioner claims snch further declaration, he must joili as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates other th.an the petitioner and also any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practices arc made in the petition. The words "other than the petitioner" are meant t6 exclude the petitioner when he hapi;>ens to be one of

•

•

•

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

K

v.

.

l"

b

1

1

- . -

A

z958

in

the

Bhagwati J.

included

e 1or mstance y an e ector.

the contesting candidates who has been defeated at the polls and would not apply where the petition is amarn1a Nadar fil d " n e ector fi mg such J(unju Thcvar a petition would have to join all the contesting candi- dates whose names were list of contesting candidates prepared and published by the returning officer in the manner prescribed under s. 38, that is to say, candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated candidates and who had not withdrawn their candidature within the period pres cribed. Such contesting candidates will have to be joined as respondents to such petition irrespective of the fact that one or more of them had retired from the contest under s. 55A (2). If the provisions of s. 82 which prescribes who shall be joined as respond ents to the petition are not complied with, the Election Commission is enjoined under s. 85 of the Act to dismiss the petition and similar are the consequences of non-compliai'ice with the provisions of s. 117 relating to deposit of security of costs. If the Election Commission however does not do so and accepts the petition, it has to cause a copy of the petition to be published in the official gazette and a copy thereof to be served by post on each of the respondents and then refer the petition to an election tribunal for trial. Section 90 (3) similarly enjoins the Election Tribunal to dismiss an election petition whicp does not comply with the provisions of s. 82 or s. 117 notwithstanding that it has not been dismissed by the Election Com mission under s. 85. Section 90 (3) is mandatory and the Election Tribunal is bound to dismiss such a peti it for the tion if an a pplica ti on is made Lefore purpose.

Turning now to s. 117, we find that it is a provision relating to the .deposit of security for the costs of the petition. vVhen a petitioner presents an election petition to the Election Commission under s. 81 he is to enclose with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that.a deposit of one thousand rupees has been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Secretary tq the Election Commission as security

.

. .

•

..

•

•

'

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

605

r958 -

Bltagwati J.

for the costs of the petition. The Government Treasury receipt must show that such deposit has been actually made by him either in a Government Kan;araja Nadar Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India; it must Hunjuv.Thev:.r also show that it has been so made in favour of the Secretary to the Election CommisBion and it must further show that it has been made as security for the costs of the petition. These are the three require- ments of the section which have to be fulfilled. The question, however, arises whether the words "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission'' are mandatory in character so that if the deposit has not been made in favour of the Secretary to the Elec- tion Commission as therein specified ·th~ deposit even though made in a Government Treasury or in th~ Rese~ve Bank of India and as security for the costs of If, for the petition would be invalid and of no avail. instance, the petitioner made the deposit either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Election Commission itself and obtained a Government Treasury receipt in regard to the same, could it be contended th.at in spite of such a deposit' having been made, the said Government Treasury receipt was not in conformity with the requirements of s. 117 and the petitioner could .be said not to have complied with the requirements of that section so as to involve a dismissal of his petition under s. 85 or s. 90 (3)?

The extreme case illustrated above has been taken by us only in order to demonstrate to what lengths a literal compliance with the provisions of s. 117 can be pushed. The petition is to be presented to the Elec tion Commission, the security for the costs ·of . the petition has to be given to the Election Commission and s. 121 provides for an application te be made in writing to the Election Commission for payment of costs by the person in whose favour the costs have been awarded and yet, even though the deposit may have bJJen made by a petitioner in favour of the Election Commission and a Government Treasury. receipt evidencing the same be enclosed along with his

~

. •

..

•

•

GOG

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1{}59]

x9;B

· · v.

petition the provisions of s. 117 of the Act can be said f(mnamja Nada, not to have been. c?mplied with merely becii.u~e the deposit w11s made m favour of the Elect10n Comm1ss10n Hunju Thcva> and not in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission. The relationship between the Election Bhagwati J. Commission on the one hand and the Secretarv to the Election Commission on tho other need uot b~· scruti nized fc,r the purposes of negativing ,this contention. It is enough to say that such a contention has only got to be stated in order to be negatived. It would be absurd to imagine that a deposit made either in a Government Treasury or in the H,eserve Bank of India in favour of the Election Commission itself would not be sufficient compliance with the provisions of s. 117 and would involve a dismissal of the petition under s. 85 or s. 90 (3). The abrn;e illustration is sufficient to demonstrate that the words "in favour of to the Election Commission " used the Secretary in in s. 117 are directory and not mandatory their character. \Vhat is of the essence of the provision contained in s. 117 is that the petitioner should furnish security for the costs of the peti tion, and. should enclose along with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that. a deposit of one thousand rupees has been made by him either in a Government Treasurv or in the H,eserve Bank of India, is at the disposal ~f the Election Commission to be utilised. by it in the manner authorised by law and is under its control and payable on a proper application being made in that behalf to the Election Commission or to any person duly authorised by it to receive the same, be he the Secretarv to the Election Commission or any one else.

"

.

If, therefore it can be shown by evidence led before the Election -'J'ribunal that the Government Treasury. receipt or the chalan which was obtained by the petitioner and enclosed by him along with his petition presented to the Election Commission was such that the Election Commission could on a·necessary applica .tion in that behalf be in a position to realise the said sum of rupees one thousand for payment of the costs to:· th(f succes~ful pa.rty it would be sufficient compli~nce

•

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

601

with the requirements of s. 117. No frnch literal compliance with the terms of s. 117 is at all necessary K as is contended for on behalf of the n,ppel ant be ore us;

·

.

f

l

;95S

-_-N

1 ac.ar

anzara1a v.

As regards the amendment of a· petition by deleting Kunju Thevar

Bhagwati J.

r

•.

the averments and the prayer regarding the declara- tion that either the petitioner or any other ca,ndidate has lwen duh· elected, so as to cure the defect of 11011- joinder of the necessary parties as respondents, \\·e may only refer to our judgment* about to be delivered in Civil Appeal No. 76 of HJ58, where the question is discussed at considerable length. Suffice it to say here that the Election Tribuna,l has no power to grant such an amendment, be it by v1ay of withdrawal or abandonment of a part of the claim or otherwise, once an Election Petition has been presented to the Electiou Conrrnission claiming such furtherdeelaration.

Considering Civil Appeal No. 76:3 of HJ:'57 in tlw light of the olmervations made above, we find that Sundararaja Pillai whose name was included in the list of contesting candidates prepared and published by the returning officer under s. 38 but who retired from the contest under R. 55A (2) before the commence ment of the poll waR included in the expression " contesting candidate" used in s. 82 .and was by reason of the firnt respondent clai1ning further de<::laration that the second respondent had been duly elected, a iiecessary party to the petition. lmtsnmch as he was not joined as a respondent, the petition war; liable to be dismissed under s. 90 (3) of the Act..

a,

This defect could not be cured by any amendment of the petition seeking to delete the claim for such farther declaration and the Election Tribunal was clearly in error in allowing such amendment on the grounds disclosed in I: A. No. 3 of 1957 or otherwise.

In regard to the deposit of security, however, the position was quite different. According to the evidence given hy K.. N ataraja lVIudaliar, head accountant in charge of the the amom1t was kept in the Election Revenue deposit and the monies were at the disposal of the Election Com-. mission; also that the Election Commission or anyone '

:Madurai Taluk

t-\ub-Treasury,

·* Basappu v. Ayyappa, see l'· 6II, post. .

•

.

. .

'

· •

•

608

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

K

'958 - . - " d

authorised by the Election Commission in that behalf could draw the said monies and no one else could amam1a .-a ar t at w1 v. Kimju Thevar was so, there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of s. 117 and there Dould be no question Bhagwati .f. of dismissing the petition for non-compliance with the

. h e same wit out sue

aut onty.

If h

raw

"thd

th

h

h

.

provisions of that section.

Having regard therefore to the conclusion reached above in regard to the non-compliance with the pro visions of s. 82, Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1957 will be allowed, the orders of dismissal made by the High Court on the writ petitions Nos. 531 of 1957 and 532 of 1957 will be set aside, the orders passed by the Elec tion Tribunal dated July 5, 1957, will be vacated and the Election Petition No. 147 of 1957 will be dismissed with costs. As the ii ppellant has failed in his coJlten tion in regard to the provisions of s. 117, we feel that the proper order for costs should be that each party do bear and pay his own costs here as well as in the High Court.

Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1957 also shares a similar fate. The first respondent therein did not join as party respondents to his petition the two candidates whose names had been included by the returning officer in the list .of contesting.,candidates but who had subsequently retired from the contest before the com mencement of the poll. They were necessary parties to the petition in so far as the first respondent had claimed a further declaration that he himself be de clared duly elected under s. 101. The Election Petition No. 74 of 1957 filed by him was thus liable to be dis missed for non-joindcr of necessary parties under s. 90(3) of the Act.

This appeal will also be accordingly· allowed, the orders passed by the High Cour.t in Writ Petitions Nos. 573 and 574of1957 will be set aside, the orders passed by the Election Tribunal on July 13, 1957, will be vacated and Election Petition No. 74 of 1957 will be dismissed. The first respondent will pay the u-ppel ~ant's costs throughout.

So far as Civil Appeal No. 48of 1958 is concerned, difficul~y w.hich faces.· the appellant is that we the 1 •

•

..

,. ..;.

-

S.C.R.

SUPREME- COURT REPORTS

'

609

d • J{anzaraja Na ar ~.

1958 -

have nothing on the record of the appeal to show what were the exact terms of the deposit made by the f the second respondent under s. 117. The copy o chalan which is cyclostyled at p. 45 of the record is Kunjit Thevar deficient in material particulars and does not throw any light on the question. The appellant no doubt made an application to the Election Tribunal to try his objection as regards the non-compliance with the provisions of that section as a preliminary objection and determine whether the second respondent had complied with the provisions of s. 117 and if not to dismiss his petition .. The Election Tribunal, however, did not decide this preliminary objection but ordered that the trial of the petition do proceed. The High Court before whom the Writ Petition M. J. C. No. 480 of 19J)7 was filed also came to the same conclusion as it thought that the matter could be decided at the time of hearing itself and dismissed the application.

Bhagwati J.

I

We are of opinion that both the Election Tribunal _and the High Court were wrong in the view they took. If the preliminary objection was not entertained and a decision reached thereupon, further proceedings taken in the Election Petition would mean a full fledged triftl involving exmnination of a large number of ·witnesses on b!'Jhftlf of the 2nd respondent in sup port of the numerous allegations of corrupt practices attributed by him to the appellant, his agents or others working on his behalf; examination of a large number of witnesses by or on behalf of the appellant contro verting the allegations made against him; examina tion of witnesses in support of the recrimination submitted by the appellant against the 2nd respon dent; and a large number of visits by the appellant from distant places like Delhi and Bombay to Ranchi resulting in not only he11vy expenses and.loss of time and diversion of the appellant from his public duty in those in the the various fields of activity including

House of the People. It would mean unnecessary I

harassment and expenses for the appellant which could certaii1ly be avoided if the preliminary objection urged by him was decided at the initial stage by the Electimi TribunaJ.

'

•

610

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1959]

·K

Bhagwati J.

We are therefore of the opinion that the orders r958 -.-Nd passed by the High Court in M. J.C. No. 480 of 1957 amara~~ a ar and by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition Kunju Thevar No. 341 of 1957 were wrong and ought to be set aside. The Election Tribunal will decide the preliminary objection in regard to •the non-compliance with the provisions of s. 117 by the 2nd respondent in the light of the observations made above and deal with the same according to law. The parties will be at liberty to lead such further eYidence before the Election Tribunal as they may be advised. The costs of both the parties, here, as well as in the courts below will be costs in the Election Petition to be dealt with bv the Election Tribunal hereafter and will abide the 'i-esult of its decision on the preliminary objection.

•

Appeals allowed. Appeal No. 48 of 1958 remanded .

•

I

•

•