Modi J.—This is an appeal in an election matter. The appellants were admittedly not a party to the proceedings before the election tribunal. They have, therefore, alongwith their memorandum of appeal, also submitted a petition praying for being allowed to institute this appeal. The question is whether we should grant the permission and entertain this appeal. This question is interesting and is also of importance.

2. We may state a few facts bearing on the point which arises for determination. Respondents Veerka (alias Veera Ram) and Mohabat Singh were declared elected to the legislative assembly of this State from the Sirohi constituency at the last general election. Veerka was an independent candidate belonging to a schedule caste for the reserved seat in this constituency, and Mohabat Singh was a candidate of the Congress party for the other seat, which was general. Tejaram was also a candidate for the reserved seat but he was unsuccessful. The latter filed an election petition to the Election Commission, challenging the election of Veerka and Mohabat Singh, which was in due course referred for adjudication to a single member Tribunal consisting of Mr. Raj Krishna Mathur, District Judge, Pali. The election petition appears to be principally based on two grounds. The first ground was that the nomination paper of one Tulsa who had also stoop up for the reserved seat as a candidate of the Ram Rajya Parishad had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. Tulsa had put down his age as 28 years in his nomination paper, while his age was recorded as 22 years in the material electoral rolls (prepared in the year 1954;, with the result that on the latter computain he would be less than 25 years at the relevant point of time, and therefore, was not eligible to stand for the State Assembly. Tulsa filed affidavit before the Returning Officer in which he swore that his date of birth was Magh Sudi 9, Svt. 1985. Still the Returning Officer was not satisfied and so he rejected the nomination paper of Tulsa. The second ground upon which the election petition was founded was that Veerka had committed corrupt practices in the course of his election and particular of the alleged corrupt practices were supplied with the election petition.

3. Veerka and Mohabat Singh resisted the petition. It was urged that the nomination paper of Tulsa was rightly rejected as he was in fact below 25 years of age at the crucial date. The alleged corrupt practices were denied by Veerka and Mohabat Singh pleased ignorance thereof.

4. On the 2nd August, 1957, Teja Ram produced only one witness before the Election Tribunal, namely, Tulsas father Ratna who deposed that the date of birth of Tulsa was Magh Sudi 14, Svt. 1989. Other witnesses were present but they were not produced. From Ratnas evidence, it could not but appear that Tulsas age in 1954 was 22 years and no more. The learned Judge, however, formed the opinion that the parties had colluded between themselves and were therefore withholding evidence in proof of the allegations made in the petition. The learned judge, therefore, by his order, dated the 14th August, 1957, decided to examine certain evidence suo motu out of the list of witnesses which had already been filed by Tejaram. The learned Judge then examined certain witnesses. He came to the conclusion that Tulsa was an unreliable witness and that it was not otherwise proved that he was 25 years of age at the relevant time, and so he eventually held that it was not established that his nomination paper had been improperly rejected. As to corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by Veerka, he further held that no evidence was forthcoming, and on that view he dismissed the petition by his order, dated the 9th September, 1957.

5. It is this order that the present appellants seek to challenge. Admittedly they were not parties to the petition. They allege themselves to be voters in this double member constituency. Their contention is that the origina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document