IMPORTANT POINT
The election of the appellant, Sh. Dharamvir, the returned candidate to Haryana Legislature Assembly from Toshan seat was rightly held to be void by HighCourt but subject to the modification that his disqualification to seek election for next six years by High Court is not affirmed. Further High Court was right in passing strictures on the conduct of returning officer in this election.

JUDGMENT

Paricooran, J.-These are connected casses. the main appeal is C.A. No. 2886 of 1989. The Civil Appeals and the Special Leave petition are preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 2.6.1989 rendered in E.P. No. 7 of 1987. The valicity of election to the Haryana Legisiative Assembly held in June, 1987 for the 67 Tosnan Legislative Assembly seat is in issue. Civil appeal No. 2886 of 1989 is the appeal filed by the returnad candidate Shri Dharanmvir, Loksal (B) - first respondent in E.P. No. 7 of 1989 (as amended). The respondents therein are, petitioner 1 to 3 in the election petition, respondent No. 2 in the election petition Shri Bansi Lal (Indian National congress) and respondents 3 to 15 in the election petition - incependent condidated, who convested the election. Petitioners 1 to 3, respondent No. 2 and respondents 3 to 15 in the election petition are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in civil Appeal No. 2886 of 1989 *petitioners in the election petition). Special Leave Petition No. 12196 of 1989 is one filed by a person who was not a party in the High Court. The petitioner therein was the returning Officer PW-9, Shri M.L. Sarwan, who. aggrievwed by certain observations made agaionst him, has sought leave to appeal gainst the judgment dated 2.6.1989. The election petition wasone filed under Section 80 to 84 and 100 of part VI. Chapter II of the representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In short, the prayer in the petition was to deciare the election of the appellant (first respondent in the election petition) to the Haryana State Assembly from 67-Tosnan Legislative seat held in Juned, 1987 as void and to deciare the fourth respondent therein (respondent No. 2 in the election petition) Shri Bansi Lal (Indian National Congress) as elected. The high Court, by a geteiled judgment dated 2.6.1989, held that the election of the appellant to the Assembly was further disqualified for a period of six years from seeking election dfrom the date the judgment came into Horce. It is from the aforesaid judgment, the first respondent in the election petition (appellant herein) had filed this appeal under Section 116-A of the Act.

2. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties asw they are arrayed in the appeal-Civil Appeal No. 2886 of 12989. The election for the Assembly seat was feld on 17.6.1987. The counting of the votes took place on 13.6.1987. The results were declared on 19.6.1987. Shri Devi Lal. leader of Lok Dal (b) party was swara in as Chief Minister of Haryana State on 20.6.1987. The appellant polled 32,547 votes, as against 30,361 votes polled by the forth respondent. The invalicated votes amounted to 3. 128, out of which in 2,799 votes, there were double markings in the ballot papers. In brief, the allegztions to set aside the election are that the appellant was guilty of commission of corrupt practice of undue influence as envisaged by Section 123(2) of the Act by direct or indirect intereference with the free exercise of election right. It was alleged that with the consent of the appellant, his counting agants started creating terror and browbeating and threatenting with physical injuries, the counting agents of other condidates, that the bellot papers of the fourth respondent were supiled by putting unauthorised rubber stamp. (a replice of the rebber stamp authorised by the Election Commission of India for marking the ballot papers), Marks were cast on the ballot papers, which were in favour of the fourth respondent to invalidate the votess, that at least 10 to 15 votes of each polling booth cast in favour of the fourth respondent were included in the bnundles of ballot papers of the appellant, that instructions were given tothe counting agents that it any interference is made in the above, the person should be severely dealt with and notwithstanding the complaint made to the Returning Officer (PW 9) and the observer (PW 12), no actio