Judgment

A. K. SARKAR, J. : In the 1957 general elections, nine persons filed nomination papers for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Sathankulam constituency all of which were found on scrutiny to be valid. Among these persons were the appellant, the respondent Kandaswami and two others called M. R. Meganathan and G. E. Muthu. Meganathan, Muthu and three others whom it is not necessary to name as they are not concerned with this appeal, did not go to the poll and dropped out of the election earlier. At the end the election was actually contested by the appellant, the respondent Kandaswami and two other candidates with whom also this appeal is not concerned. The appellant was successful at the poll and was on March 6, 1957, declared elected.

2. On April 15, 1957, the respondent Kandaswami whom we will hereafter refer to as the respondent, preferred an election petition under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void. The appellant was made the first respondent to the petition but Meganathan and Muthu were not made parties to it at all. Some of the other candidates at the election were also made parties to the petition but it is unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to refer to them.

3. The petition was referred to an Election Tribunal for trial. The appellant then made an application to the Election Tribunal which was marked I. A. No. 1 of 1957 for the dismissal of the petition under S. 90 (3) of the Act. That Section provides that, "The Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of S. 81, S. 82 or S. 117". The appellant s case was that the petition had not complied with the provisions of S. 82 Section 82 states:

"A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition-

...............................................................

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition."

The appellant contended that allegations of corrupt practice were made in the petition against Meganathan and Muthu and they should, therefore, have been made parties to the petition under S. 82 and as that had not been done, that Section had not been complied with and so the petition had to be dismissed under S. 90 (3). It is not in dispute that non-compliance with the provisions of S. 82 entails the dismissal of an election petition. The respondent s answer to the application was that no allegation of corrupt practice had been made in the petition against Meganathan or Muthu. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and dismissed the application of the appellant.

4. The appellant then moved the High Court at Madras by two applications, one for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Tribunal dismissing his application and the other for the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the Tribunal not to proceed with the hearing of the election petition. The High Court by its judgment dated November 1, 1957,* dismissed both the applications, taking the same view as the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

* See AIR 1958 Mad. 171 - Ed.

5. It is not in dispute that Meganathan and Muthu were candidates. A candidate has been defined in S. 79 of the Act as meaning among others, a person who has been duly nominated as a candidate at any election and both Meganathan and Muthu had been so nominated.

6. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether allegations of corrupt practice are made against them in the election petition. The statements in the petition which are said to constitute such allegations are in these terms:

"IV-A. The returned candidate has committed the following acts of bribery-corrupt practices according to S. 123 (1) of Act 43 of 1951:-

.............................................................................

.............................................................................

(2) Sri M. R. Meganathan was candidat