Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This appeal arises from an election petition filed after the last General Election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, in respect of the election from the Kasdol Legislative Assembly constituency held on May 4, 1963. The first respondent was declared elected and the appellant challenged his election alleging several acts of corrupt practices, publication of false statements, filing of false accounts, etc. The election petition was supported by an affidavit sworn before K. S. Moghe, Officer for Administering Oaths on Affidavits, Jabalpur, Moghe was the Clerk of Court in the District Court, Jabalpur. The first respondent objected that the affidavit was not sworn before the proper authority as required by rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and it was, therefore, prayed that the election petition should be dismissed or the allegations about corrupt practices should be struck out. The Election Tribunal, by an order, dated October 31, 1963 accepted the objection but allowed the filing of a proper affidavit and a fresh affidavit was taken on record. No action was taken against that order. It appears that the Election Tribunal had framed two issues for determination. They were:

"Issue No. 18: Whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his petition is bad in law, as not properly sworn before a competent Officer duly authorised to attest and authenticate an affidavit and does not also comply with the provisions of S. 83 of the Representation of the People Act and the Rules made thereunder. If so, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground."

"Issue No. 20: Whether the various alleged acts of corrupt practices mentioned in the petition are duly supported by an affidavit as required under S. 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act? If not, what is its effect on this petition?

On February 14, 1964 the first respondent filed an application drawing attention to the latter part of issue No. 20 and asked inter alia for a finding whether the election petition was not liable to be dismissed when the affidavit was not proper. The Tribunal by an order passed on February 24, 1964 rejected the last contention and held that as a fresh affidavit was filed the petition could proceed to trial.

2. On March 2, 1964 the first respondent filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging both the orders and asked that they be quashed. The High Court, by its order now under appeal by certificate, quashed the two orders and the Tribunal was directed to deal further with the petition in the light of the under of the High Court.

3. The High Court in an elaborate order has considered whether the provisions of R. 94-A were mandatory or directory but it did not address itself to the question whether the first affidavit was proper or not. This was, perhaps, due to the fact that the appellant seems to have conceded before the Tribunal that the first affidavit was not proper. This concession was sought to be withdrawn in this appeal by the appellant and on looking into the record we were satisfied that the concession was wrongly made and should be allowed to be withdrawn. We accordingly heard arguments on the question whether the original affidavit did not satisfy the Conduct of Election Rules and the Representation of the People Act. We are satisfied that the first affidavit was proper and the second affidavit was not necessary.

4. Before we give our decision on this point we shall first set down the relevant provisions. Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act provided that-

"83. (1) an election petition-

(a) Shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies:

(b) Shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and