An order allowing withdrawal of an appeal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a final decision of the High Court and is not subject to review.

Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 110, 116A, 116B - COURT'S POWER TO PERMIT WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL - FINALITY OF DECISION - REVIEW OF JUDGMENT.
Fact of the Case:

An election petition was filed alleging corrupt practices by the elected candidate. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed to the High Court. During the hearing of the appeal, the Court suggested that the petition be abandoned in the public interest. The parties agreed to withdraw the appeal, and the Court passed an order accordingly.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order allowing withdrawal of the appeal was a final decision of the High Court and was not subject to review. The Court also held that the provisions relating to withdrawal of a petition or abatement may also apply to an appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal, but it did not express a considered opinion on that question.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court had the power to permit withdrawal of the appeal. 2. Whether the order allowing withdrawal of the appeal was a final decision of the High Court. 3. Whether the order allowing withdrawal of the appeal was subject to review.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court has the power to permit withdrawal of an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. An order allowing withdrawal of an appeal is a final decision of the High Court and is not subject to review. 3. The Legislature has not conferred a power of review upon the High Court to review decisions in appeal under the Representation of the People Act, and has declared the order final and conclusive.
Final Decision: The application for substitution of the petitioner and for prosecuting the appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT - 1. An election was held in the Parliamentary Cons-tituency for Meeting a representative from the Kolaba District. One Rajaram Balkrishoa Rant was declared elected by the Election Commissioner. Thereafter. one Narayan Yeshwaut None (whom we shall hereafter refer to as "Nene") applied to set aside the election on the ground that Rajaram Balkrishna Rait had been guilty of corrupt practices which had vitiated the election. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal constituted under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Against the order passed by that Tribunal, an appeal was preferred to this Couer under Section 116A of the Act. That appeal teas placed for hearing before Mr. Justice S. T. Desai and Mr. Justice Miabhoy on 17-6-1958. It appears Irons the judgment recorded that alter ar-gumenths were heard by the Court on the merits of the dispute, a suggestion was thrown out by the Court that the petition for setting aside the election he abandoned in the larger interest of the public. The learned advocates who appeared on behalf of Nene and Raut after considering the suggestion informed the Court that the appeal need not be proceeded with. Thereafter, Mr. R, B. Kotwa], who appeared on behalf of None, stated that his client desired to withdraw the petition and the appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn. Mr. Sule, who appeared on behalf of Raut, stated that his client has no objection in the Petition and the appeal he-ing permitted to be withdrawn. The Court then proceeded to pass the final order as follows:

"The result is that, the appeal will be allowed list Sw withdrawn. Learned Counsel for the parties the agreed that there should be no order for costs of the hearing of this appeal and that the order for easts made by the Tribunal should be vacated. Order accordingly".

2. On 4-8-1958 one Jagannath Bhau Patil, who is the petitioner in this application has applied for being substituted as an appellant and for prosecuting the appeal. He contended that the proceeding for setting aside an election on the ground of corrupt practices is not merely a proceeding in which the two parties before the Court are concerned, but it is a dispute in which the entire electorate is concerned, and, having regard to the provisions of Section 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 116A of the Act, the appeal could not have been permitted to be withdrawn by the Court which heard the appeal. It is urged that the order allowing withdrawal of the appeal was without jurisdiction, when it was not followed by the publication of a notice of withdrawal of the appeal, and, therefore, the applicant he permitted to be substituted for the original appellant and to prosecute the appeal. When rule was issued the Court requested the Advocate General to appear and assist the Court as amicus curiae. This application is now placed before us for hearing and the learned Advocate General has appeared before us.

3. Section 110 of the Represent at ion of the People Act. 1951, provides by the first Sub-section that if there are more petitioners than one, no application to withdraw an election petition shall be made except with the consent of all the Petitioners. By Sub-section (2), it is provided that no application for withdrawal shall be granted if in the opinion of the Election Commission or of the Tri-bunai, as the case may be, such application has been induced by any bargain or consideration which ought not to be allowed. By Sub-section (3), it is provided that if the application is granted, an order as to costs shall be passed; and the notice of withdrawal shall be published in the Official Gazette by the Election Commission or by the Tribunal, as the case m;iy be; and a person who might himself have been a petitioner may, within fourteen days of such publication, apply to be substituted as petitioner in place of the party withdrawing, and upon compliance with the conditions of Section 117 as to security, shall be entitled t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document