JUDGMENT

 This election appeal arises out of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Election Petition filed by the appellant who was candidate for the State Assembly (Constituency No. 83) namely, Barnala, the results whereof were declared on 1-7-1980. The petitioner assured 26,797 whereas the respondent, who bad succeeded, polled 30,289 votes. The view we are taking in this case to direct the High Court to frame issues in the context of averments made in paragraphs 29 and 36, in the facts and circumstances of this case is a logical sequel to the view taken by this Court in the first round by the order of this Court dated 22nd January, 1981 in an earlier proceeding between the same parties arising out of the same election petition. Mr. Ashok Sen with his usual fairness reduced the scope of this case by conceding that he would only press for framing of issues in the context of allegations incorporated in paragraphs 29 and 36 of the Election Petition which were originally struck off by the High Court, but restored by this Court as that part of the High Court order was set aside by this Courts order dated 22nd January, 1981. We, therefore, send the case back to the High Court for framing issues and taking evidence in the context of paragraphs 29 and 36. We do not propose to express any opinion for the present about the finding recorded on the allegations made in paragraph 35 of the Election Petition. It appears that according to the High Court the allegations made in paragraphs 29 and 36 were too vague and did not contain material particulars or statement of facts to indicate in what way the respondent was able to further the prospects of his election. Before dealing with these two paragraphs it may be necessary to state here that after these two paragraphs were struck off by the High Court the matter came up to this Court which by a short order reversed the decision of the High Court as this Court did not agree with the view taken by the High Court. This Court remitted the matter to the learned Judge leaving open to him to raise appropriate issues on the basis of the allegations made in paragraphs including paragraphs 29 and 36 of the Election Petition. When. the matter as remitted to the High Court the learned Judge observed that the allegations made in paragraphs 29 and 36 were vague and did not call for framing any issue at all. We we constrained to observe that this order passed by the learned Judge was contrary to the order passed by this Court dated 22nd January, 1981. This Court had clearly observed that the order of the High Court striking of paragraphs 29 and 36 was set aside and these paragraphs were restored and were to remain in the Election Petition. The only liberty given to the learned Judge was to frame appropriate issues in a particular manner after considering the facts in these paragraphs. We do not find any force in the argument of Mr. Hardev Singh that this Court had given the option to the learned Judge either to frame the issues or refuse to frame issues. When the SC had in terms reversed the decision of the High Court and restored the paragraphs, the SC had not done this as an exercise in futility without any purpose or namesake. We are greatly distressed to note that the learned High Court Judge while considering the matter after remand has made certain observations which are totally subversive of judicial discipline. In this connection the learned Judge observed :

"Their Lordships, as would a bare reading of the judgment reveal, besides simply observing that deletion of paragraphs 29, 30, 33 and 36 was not justified, threw no light on the aspect as to why the deletion was not justified, with the result that, in all humility, one is left in the dark in regard to the non-justifiability of the deletion of the said paragraphs" (Emphasis added)

2. These observations besides being in poor taste are lacking in propriety as also in respect due to the highest Court of the land by the State