Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 1979 has been filed by the appellant who was a candidate in the 1978 elections from Andhra Pradesh and had been successfully elected to the Legislative Assembly of the State from Bapatla Constituency No. 98. The respondent, who is the election petitioner and also one of the candidates who lost the election, filed an election petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the election of the appellant mainly on three grounds; firstly that the appellant indulged in corrupt practices inasmuch as he took the assistance of a Tahsildar in promotion of his election prospects; (2) That the appellant at the time of filing his nomination papers held an office of profit under the Government and therefore was disqualified from fighting the election; and (3) it was alleged by the petitioner that there were number of irregularities and infirmities in the counting of the votes and therefore if the votes were recounted, the election petitioner would have succeeded and hence he should be declared duly elected.

2. The High Court after taking the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties found the first two grounds namely; corrupt practice and the question that the appellant was holding an office of profit under the Government in favour of the election petitioner was proved and set aside the election of the appellant. The High Court however did not choose to go into the question of recounting although the respondent election petitioner had made an express prayer for recounting of the votes and for being declared to be duly elected to the Assembly if the election of the appellant was set aside. The respondent, election petitioner, accordingly has filed Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1979 against that part of the judgment of the High Court by which his prayer for recount and a declaration that he be declared duly elected was disallowed.

3. So far as Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 1979 is concerned, after hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. In support of the appeal, only two points were raised before us. In the first place Mr. P. P. Rao submitted that according to the facts found by the High Court, the appellant could not in law be held to be holding an office under the Govt., much less an office of profit. Secondly, it was argued that so far as the corrupt practice is concerned, the pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition are absolutely vague and contain neither any details nor any particulars as required under the law. It was vehemently contended that even on the allegations made by the appellant, the Tahsildar concerned was transferred some time in Sept. 1977 long before the elections were notified and the appellant had filed his nomination papers. So far as this part of the matter is concerned, Mr. K. K. Venugopal counsel appearing for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 1979 and for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1979 could not support the judgment on this aspect of the matter because the allegations made in the pleadings are absolutely vague and are not accompanied with the necessary particulars required by law. There is absolutely no allegation in the pleadings to show that at any time after having filed his nomination papers, the appellant made any efforts to seek the assistance of Tahsildar Narasimha Rao in furthering his election prospects or in any way helping him to win the election. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the election petitioner failed to prove the allegations of corrupt practice alleged against the appellant. The finding of the High Court on this point cannot be sustained.

4. As regards the other question namely as to whether or not the appellant was holding an office of profit under the Government, Mr. Venugopal appearing for the respondent, in view of the long course of decisions of this Court, (pressed) that the evidence clearly shows that the appellant