Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N.Grover : J.C.Shah : K.S.Hegde
Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali
Versus
B.D.Jatti
Case No. : 2394 of 1968
Date of Decision : 10/15/70
Advocates Appeared: Albal A.V. : Kumar Vineet : Pappu Shyamala : Patil B.S. : Veerappa M.
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 – Sections 110, 2, 5 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 173 – Election – Challenged – Withdrawal – Election petition was filed, by electors in Jamkhandi Constituency – Each of them had acted as an election agent of respondent No. 2. – Petitioner No. 1 was his election agent from 10/02/1967, till last date of election and petitioner No. 2 acted as an election agent from 19/01/196 7/02/1967. – Trial of petition commenced and after certain witnesses had been examined, petitioner No. 1, , made an application praying fur permission to withdraw from petition "for all purposes". – Petitioner No. 2 objected to his withdrawal. – Judge dismissed application of petitioner No. 1 on ground that Section 110(1) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, did not permit withdrawal by one petitioner without the consent of his co-petitioner. – Held, Counsel for appellant has given to court a list of 11 complaints and respresentations which were sent to Home Minister, Mysore Election Commission, and other concerned authorities in which various allegations were made against the two police officers, Kallur and Hasbi apart from other illegalities and irregularities which had been allegedly committed by or on behalf of respondent No. 1. – Suggestion is that these representations or complaints were made promptly and at time when particular incident took place and they furnish corroboration of evidence of witnesses produced by election petitioners with regard to commission of corrupt practices by respondent No. 1 and his supporters. – Judge has discussed and taken into consideration practically all these representations while appreciating evidence of witnesses. – As his conclusions have been accepted as correct by court nothing further need be said about these representations or complaints – Free and fair elections are very foundation of democratic institutions and just as it is said that justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done ; .similarly elections should not only be fairly and properly held but should also seem to be so conducted as to inspire confidence in the minds of the electors that everything has been above board and has been done to ensure free elections. – It will be a sad day in the: history of our country when police and government officers create even an impression that they are interfering for benefit of one or the other candidate. – This is particularly so if a candidate is holding an important position or assignment like respondent No. 1, who, at the material time was a Minister in State – Appeal Dismissed
A.N.GLOVER, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal from ajudgment of the Mysore High court dismissing an election petition which had been filed by two electors challenging the election of respondent No. 1 B. D. Jatti from the Jamkhandi Constituency at the General Elections held in 1967.
(2) THE last date for filing of nomination papers was 19/01/1967. The polling took place on 2/02/1967 and the result was declared on 22/02/1967. The only contesting candidates were respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 M. M. Shivappa. Respondent No. 1 secured 24,578 votes whereas respondent No. 2 got 21,261 votes. The election petition was filed on 6/04/1967, by 1. S. Ghattarki and P. R. Belagali who were electors in the Jamkhandi Constituency. Each of them had acted as an election agent of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Ghattarki was his election agent from 10/02/1967, till the last date of the election and petitioner No. 2 Belagali acted as an election agent from 19/01/196 7/02/1967. The trial of the petition commenced on 1/12/1967 and after certain witnesses had been examined on Fobruary 1, 1967, petitioner No. 1, Ghattarki, made an application praying fur permission to withdraw frcm the petition "for all purposes". Petitioner No. 2 objected to his withdrawal. The learned judge dismissed the application of petitioner No. 1 on the ground that Section 110(1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, hereinafter called the "Act" did not permit withdrawal by one petitioner without the consent of his co-petitioner. It hag, however, been noted by the learned judge that both the petitioners continued to be represented by one counsel Shri B, S. Patil.
(3) IT may be mentioned at this stage that the election petition is a very long document and that the evidence which has been produced by the parties is also voluminous. The judgment of the learned judge consists of 227 printed pages. A ilumber of issues were framed but the controversy before us has been confined only to certain points.
(4) THE first question which falls for consideration arises out of issue No. 1 which consists of three clauses and was framed in the following terms :
"I (a) Do the petitioners prove that the 1st respondent was not an elector at all and therefore not qualified to stand for election?
(B) Are the petitioners precluded from questioning the validity of the entry of the name of the 1st respondent as elector in the Electoral Roll relating toJamkandi Constituency?
(C) Has this court no jurisdiction to go into the said question of validity?"
IT was held by the learned trial judge that the petitioners (in the election petition) were not precluded from questioning the validity of the entry A the name of respondent No. 1 as an elector in the Electoral Roll relating to Jamkhandi Constituency and that the court had the jurisdiction to go into that question. It was, however, found on a consideration of the evidence that the petitioners had failed to prove that respondent No. 1 was not an elector and was not qualified to stand for election to a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Jamkhandi constituency. If the view of the trial judge that the court had the jurisdiction in an election petition to go into the question of the validity of an entry in an Electoral Roll is erroneous and if the court was precluded from deciding this matter it will be altogether unnecessary to consider the evidence led for the purpose of clause (a) of issue No. 1.
(5) THE principal allegations of the petitioners on issue No. 1 (a) were that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a person ordinarily resident within the constituency of Jamkhandi during the period relevant to the 1967 General Elections. It was further asserted that by long stay in the city of Bangalore the name of respondent No. 1 had been entered in the Electoral Roll relating to the municipal area of that city and that respondent No. 1 with the object of getting his name entered i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
