Judgement

VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. : The appellant was one of several candidates who stood for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mysore from the Tarikera Constituency. At the polling which took place on 4-1-1952 he obtained 8093 Votes as against 8059 got by the first respondent, the others getting much less, & was duly declared elected. The first respondent then filed a petition for setting aside the election on the ground that the appellant had committed corrupt and illegal practices, and also prayed that he might himself be declared duly elected.

By its order dated 15-1-1953, the Election Tribunal, Shimoga held that three of the corrupt practices set out in the petition had been proved, viz:, (1) that one Ahmed Jan had with the connivance of the appellant transported voters to the polling booth in a service bus free of fare, (2) that the appellant secured the services of a Government servant, Parameswarappa to canvass for him at the election, and (3) that the return of election expenses made by him was false, and that the amount actually spent for the election exceeded the maximum allowed.

2. On these findings, the Tribunal declared the election of the appellant void, and further recorded a finding under S. 99 of Act No. XLIII of 1951 that he had committed the corrupt practices mentioned in Ss. l23 (6) and (8) and S. 124 (4), and had thereby become subject to the disqualifications referred to in Ss. 140 and 143 of the Act. It further held that the first respondent had secured the largest number of valid votes, and declared him duly elected.

The appellant moved the High Court of Mysore under Art. 226 for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Tribunal, and by their judgment dated 11-l-1954 the learned Judges set it aside on the ground that the Tribunal had acted in excess of its jurisdiction in permitting certain amendments, and also that there were errors apparent on the face of the record. The first respondent then preferred an appeal to this Court, and by its judgment dated 5-5-1954 this Court set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that the order of the Tribunal was not bad either for want of jurisdiction, or for any error apparent on the face of the record, and in the result, the order of the Tribunal dated 15-1-1953 stood restored. Vide - T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa , AIR 1954 SC 440 (A).

3. The appellant has now come up to this Court by way of special appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 15-l-1953, and has urged the following grounds :

(1) The findings that the appellant had committed the corrupt practices mentioned in Ss. 123(6) and (8) and S. 124 (4) are not justified by the evidence;

(2) The Tribunal was in error in declaring the first respondent herein duly elected; and

(3) The Tribunal had acted illegally in recording a finding against the appellant that he had become disqualified under Ss. 140 and 143 without notice to him under the proviso to S. 99.

4. As regards the first contention, this Court has repeatedly held that ordinarily it will not in special appeal review findings of fact recorded by an Election Tribunal if there is evidence on which they could be reached. The appellant is unable to say that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of these findings, and we must therefore decline to interfere with them.

5. (2) It is next contended that having found that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices, the Tribunal should have stopped with declaring his election void, and should not have passed the further order under S. 101 (b) declaring the first respondent duly elected. What the Tribunal has done is this : It found that about 60 voters were transported by Ahmed Jan to the polling booth, that of them 47 were Muslim women who voted for the appellant, and that if their votes were struck out, the margin of difference between the appellant and the first respondent which was only 34 votes would disappear, and the first respondent would have secured the largest