The court held that a defect in the affidavit filed with an election petition is not necessarily fatal to the petition, and that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow the petitioner to file a new affidavit in the prescribed form. Additionally, the court held that the question of whether the particulars provided regarding alleged corrupt practices are sufficient is a question of fact and that the High Court will not interfere with the Tribunal's decision on this issue in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and it arises in the following circumstances: -

( 2 ) THE petitioner Satish Kumar and respondent No. 2 Badri Prasad and a few others contested the general election held on the 26th February, 1962 from the bansur Constituency for memership of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was declared elected as he received the highest number of votes. Respondent No. 2 lost the election. Respondent No. 2 then filed an election petition to challenge the election of the petitioner before the Election Commission. The said petition was sent for disposal to the Election Tribunal, Alwar, presided over by Shri Syed Ikramul Haq, R. H. J. S. The petitioner in his written statement raised several objections which led the Tribunal to frame more than 58 issues. Out of them 16 issues (Nos. 1, 7, 10, 14, 15, 22 to 25, 31, 36, 40, 54, 55, 57 and 58)were considered by the Tribunal to be preliminary issues and so they were decided on the 18th October, 1962 after hearing both the parties. Issues Nos. 24 and 25 were decided partly in favour of the petitioner and the rest were decided against him; It is against this order that the present application is directed.

( 3 ) THE writ application is a very lengthy one but the objections raised by the petitioner may be divided into two categories. The first and main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to his objection on the basis of which issue No. 54 was framed by the Tribunal. It is contended that according to section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act No. 43 of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to support the corrupt practices alleged by him by an affidavit in the prescribed form, and since the affidavit filed by him was not in the prescribed form nor did the affidavit disclose as to which facts were true to the knowledge of the petitioner and which of them he believed to be correct on the basis of. information received by him. The affidavit was no affidavit in the eye of law. It has been argued that without a proper affidavit the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, that it had decided issue No. 54 wrongly and that by giving a wrong decision it had assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in it. It is prayed that this Court should, therefore, interfere in the matter, quash all the further proceeedings and dismiss the election petition.

( 4 ) THE next contention which relates to the remaining issues noted above is, that the petitioner had requested the Election Tribunal to direct respondent No. 2 to supply full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged by him, that the Tribunal had committed error in arriving at the conclusion that the particulars supplied by respondent No. 2 were sufficient, that this finding of the Tribunal is incorrect and, therefore, this Court should set aside its orders. It is further prayed that respondent No. 2 should be directed to give all the particulars required by the petitioner and if he fails to do so, his election petition regarding those charges should be dismissed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 contests the writ application. It is urged by the-learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the affidavit given by his client was quite in order even though it was not in the prescribed form. It is pointed out that the election petition was filed before the Election Commission on the 9th April, 1962, that the form of affidavit which was prescribed by the Central Government appeared for the first time in the Gazette of India dated the 27th February, 1962 but it did not come to the notice of respondent No. 2, and so it was not presented in that form. Respondent No. 2 had, however, substantially complied with the requirements of the prescribed affidavit and at any rate he had given another affidavit in the prescribed form in accordance w