Back
1963 Supreme(Pat) 5
PATNA HIGH COURT
Kanhaiya Singh and Ramratna Singh JJ.
Laliteshwar Prasad Shahi
Versus
Bateshwar Prasad
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 885 of 1962 ; 886 of 1962 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 14, 1963
The Election Tribunal has ample power to direct discovery and inspection in the matter of an election petition and the interrogatories sought to be exhibited are wholly innocuous and are confined to the material facts in issue.
Headnote:
ELECTION - Amendment of Election Petition - Scope and ambit of the interrogatories - Power of the Election Tribunal to direct discovery and inspection - Principles governing the delivery of interrogatories - Discretion of the Tribunal - Interference by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent on the ground that he was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly by reason of the disqualification attaching to him under Clause (d) of Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Election Tribunal rejected the petition of amendment on two grounds, first, that the amendment sought to incorporate in those two paragraphs several new instances of contract which were not mentioned in the original petition and, second, that these new instances, if allowed to Be added, would change the nature of the case. Further, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra Bajpai V/s. Triloki Singh, (S) AIR 1957 SC 444, he observed that the Tribunal has no power to amend the petition where new instances are sought to be introduced by the amendment. The petitioner filed an application seeking leave of the Tribunal to deliver the following interrogatories for the examination of opposite party no. 1; On 30th July, 1962, opposite party No. 1 raised objection to the exhibition of interrogatories. By his order dated 31st July, 1962, the Election Tribunal refused to give leave to administer the interrogatories on two grounds, first, that whether or not opposite party No. 1 had entered into contracts with the State of Bihar is a matter to be pleaded by the petitioner himself and it cannot form the subject-matter of the interrogatories, and, second, that there is no provision in law by which opposite party No. 1 could be asked to answer the interrogatories.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Election Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the petition of amendment and refusing to give leave to administer the interrogatories. The Court held that the amendment sought to be made was only a clarification of the ground already stated with precision in the election petition and did not introduce any new ground or any material fact or charge. The Court further held that the Election Tribunal had ample power to direct discovery and inspection in the matter of an election petition and that the interrogatories sought to be exhibited were wholly innocuous and were confined to the material facts in issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Tribunal was right in rejecting the petition of amendment? 2. Whether the Election Tribunal was right in refusing to give leave to administer the interrogatories?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Election Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the petition of amendment because the amendment sought to be made was only a clarification of the ground already stated with precision in the election petition and did not introduce any new ground or any material fact or charge. 2. The Court held that the Election Tribunal was wrong in refusing to give leave to administer the interrogatories because the Election Tribunal had ample power to direct discovery and inspection in the matter of an election petition and that the interrogatories sought to be exhibited were wholly innocuous and were confined to the material facts in issue.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both the applications and directed that the amendment be made and that the interrogatories be administered to opposite party No. 1 for answer by affidavit.
Kanhaiya Singh, J.
1. These are two applications under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of the same election petition and challenging, respectively, the legality and correctness of the order of the Election Tribunal dated 16th July, 1962, refusing amendment of the election petition and the order dated 31st July, 1962, refusing leave to deliver interrogatories for the examination of opposite party No. 1, and they will be disposed of by this judgment; but for the sake of convenience I will deal with them separately. Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 885 of 1962.
2. In a contest between the petitioner and opposite parties 1 to 4 for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Lalganj North Constituency, Bateshwar Prasad, opposite party No. 1, was declared elected on 27th February, 1962, and on 11th April, 1952, the petitioner filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), numbered as 133 of 1962, disputing the election of opposite party No. 1 as void, substantially on the ground that on the date of his election he was disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly by reason of the disqualification attaching to him under Clause (d) or section 7 of the Act. Clause (d) provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if there subsists a contract entered into in the course of his trade or business by him with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by, that Government. The Election Commission constituted Mr. Shyamnandan Prasad, District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, opposite party No. 5, as Election Tribunal and referred to him the election petition for trial under the provisions or Section 86 of the Act. The material facts in support of the said ground are stated in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the election petition (Annexure A), which may be conveniently reproduced here:
"9. That the respondent No. 1 and his son Shri Bhupendra Nath Prasad are the proprietors and owners of the Patna Flooring Company and they are carrying on the business, since long, of mosaic flooring and also plumbing and sanitary works etc. in the name and style of M/S Patna Flooring Co. with its office, godown, workshop and show room at Hassan Imam Road (Dak Bungalow Road) Patna and business is managed and looked after by the respondent No. 1.
10. That the respondent No. 1 himself and through his firm M/S Patna Flooring Company has got contracts with the Government of Bihar through Public Works Department (Construction Division) for doing mosaic works at Rajendra Surgical Block of Patna General Hospital and the above contracts were subsisting at the time of nomination and election of respondent No. 1.
11. That in connection with the above contracts mentioned in paragraph 10 the respondent No. 1 has filed a Money Suit No. 55 of 1959 in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Patna against the State of Bihar, the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Bihar, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Construction Divison No. 1) Patna for realisation of his claim amounting to Rs. 18,500/-in connection with the execution of the work of the said contracts which was pending adjudication at the relevant dates.
12. That respondent No. 1 himself and through his firm has got subsisting contracts for mosaic flooring etc. at Barauni with the Government of Bihar and the Central Govt.
13. That the respondent No. 1 directly and indirectly himself and through his firm M/S Patna Flooring Company has got several other subsisting contracts with the Government of Bihar for mosaic flooring and for sanitary fittings etc. and so he is disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly."
in short, the allegation is that
