The petitioner complains of undue, return of the 1st respondent from the Ollur Assembly Constituency at the election held in Jan., 1980. He alleges commission of the corrupt practices of undue influence and appeal to religious sentiments by the 1st respondent's agents with his (1st respondent's) knowledge and consent and at his instance; and of the electoral offence of violation of S.130(1)(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter, the Act) by the 1st respondent. He also complains of undue election on the ground of non-compliance with Article 326 of the Constitution. The 1st respondent defends his return denying all the material allegations advanced by the petitioner.

2. The corrupt practices alleged are: (i) Publication of Ext. P4 by P.W. 6 as the Convenor of the Diocesan Political Committee of the Trichur Catholic Diocese (hereinafter mentioned as the Political Committee) and of Ext.P5 by him in his personal capacity; and (ii) Preaching of sermons by Rev. Fr. Cyriac Mandumpala (hereinafter, for brevity, M) and Rev. Fr. Antony Anthicad (hereinafter, shortly, A). The accusation of electoral offence is that the 1st respondent drove into polling stations exhibiting his symbol in front of his car. The complaint of non-compliance with Art.326 of the Constitution is founded on the allegation that several persons below 21 years of age as on 1-1-1979 have been entered in the electoral roll of the constituency.

3. The following are the issues raised in this case after hearing the learned counsel on both sides :

1. Is the petition liable to be rejected on the ground that it has not been presented by the petitioner in person ?

2. Is it liable to be rejected on the ground that the affidavit in support of it is not in conformity with the requirements of law ?

3. Is it not maintainable for want of details in respect of the allegation of corrupt practices or of the invalidity of the electoral roll ?

4. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is void on account of the corrupt practices under S.123 (2) of the R. P. Act. 1951 as alleged in paras 2 and 3 of the election petition?

5. Whether the Political Committee of the Foranas of the Trichur Catholic Diocese and/or Rev. Fr. Thomas Thalachira acted as the agent of or with the consent of the 1st respondent in procuring the printing and in publishing of the statements similar to Annexure-I and/or Annexure-II ?

6. Whether printed statements similar to Annexures-I and II were distributed among the voters in Ollur Constituency by the agents and supporters of the 1st respondent ?

7. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is void on account of the corrupt practices under Ss.123 (2) and 123 (3) of the R.P. Act as alleged in para 4 of the election petition ?

8. Whether Rev. Fr. Cyriac Mandumpala and/or Rev. Fr. Antony Anthicad acted as the agents of or with the consent of the 1st respondent?

9. Whether the corrupt practices under Sections 123 (2) and 123 (3) of the R.P. Act alleged in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the petition were committed in the interest of the 1st respondent and whether the election of the 1st respondent has been materially affected by the aforesaid corrupt practices?

10. Is the 1st respondent guilty of the electoral offence under S.130 (1) (e) of the R.P. Act, 1951 for the reasons stated in para 5 of the petition ? If so, has it affected the election of the 1st respondent materially?

11. Were several voters included in the electoral rolls of the Ollur Constituency disentitled to vote as they had not attained the age of 21 years as on 1-1-1979? Have such disqualified voters exercised their franchise in the election? Are their votes invalid and liable to be rejected ? Has the election of the 1st respondent been materially affected for this reason ?

12. Is the petitioner precluded from challenging he correctness of the voters' list as contended by the 1st respondent in para 8 of his counter-statement?

13. Is the election of the 1st respondent liable to be declared void?

1