Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- This is an appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur at Imphal under S. l16A of the Representation of the People Act. The appeal arises from an election to the Outer Manipur Parliamentary Constituency at which the appellant, who was the returned candidate, and five others were the contesting candidates. This Outer Manipur Constituency comprised 14 Assembly constituencies. The dates of poll were 15th, 20th, 24th, 28th February, 1967 and 6th March, 1967 and the time of poll was from 7.30 A.M. to 4-30 P. M. This constituency had 219,554 registered voters. The total number of votes polled was 1,20,008. Of these 4,166 votes were declared invalid. The returned candidate received 30,403 votes as against the next candidate who received 28,862 votes. There was thus a majority of 1,541 votes in favour of the returned candidate. The result of the poll was declared on March 10, 1967.

2. The candidate who secured the second largest number of votes filed this election petition on April 20, 1967. The main ground of attack, which succeeded in the Judicial Commissioner s Court, was that polling was disturbed because of numerous circumstances. These were that the polling centers were in some cases changed from the original buildings to other buildings of which due notification was not issued earlier with the result that many of the voters who went to vote at the old polling booths found no arrangement or poll and rather than go to the new polling station, went away without casting their votes. The second ground was that owing to firing by the Naga Hostiles, the voting at some of the polling stations was disturbed and almost no votes were cast. It was lastly contended that the polling hours at some stations were reduced with the result that some of the voters who went to the polling station were unable to cast their votes.

3. It is hardly necessary to set down here the names of the poling stations at which these things happened. In any event, these polling stations carry rather strange names and it would not help to state them here. The net result may be stated. It was this: there were 12 polling centres; at 4 of which the venue for the poll was altered. There were 6 others at which the firing disturbed the poll and in 2 of the polling centres not a single vote was cast and lastly in one of the polling centres out of 513 voters only one voted.

4. The following chart discloses the break-up of the figures at these polling centres:

Sl. No. Name of the polling stations (as notified) No. of voters attached to the station No. of votes actually cast

1. Tungam Khullen High School . . 1242 522

2. Chandel Junior Basic School . . 1060 172

3. Purum Pantha L. P. School . . 654 338

4. Litan L. P. School . . 449 347

5. Toupokpi M. E. School . . 584 128

6. Chakpikarong M. E. School . . 715 67

7. Bolyang Tampak L. P. School . . 868 249

8. Oklu L. P. School . . 725 17

9. Larong Khullen J. B. School . . 581 53

10. Lakhamei M. E. School . . ...

11. Nagari Khullen M. E. School . . 564 ...

12. Karong Dak Bungalow . . 518 1

8620 1894

5. It will be noticed from this chart that out of 8620 votes which would have been polled, only 1894 votes were actually received. In other words, 6726 voters did not vote or could not vote. The election petitioner who ran a deficit of 1541 votes claimed in the election petition that the result of the poll was prejudicial to him in particular and that by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and its rules, the result of the election in so far as the returned candidate was concerned had been materially affected. The Judicial Commissioner after examining a large number of witnesses on both sides, came to the conclusion that there was this flaw in the election for this constituency. He went further and held that the result of the election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected. He, therefore, avoided the election and ordered fresh poll in th