(1) At the last General Election of 1967,.13 candidates had filed nomination papers from Doda, Assembly constituency to the Legislative Assembly, of the Jammu and Kashmir State.

(2) On the date of scrutiny, which was held on 23-1-67 the nomination papers of only one candidate, Ghulam Hussau, out of the 13 candidates, were rejected, and those of others were declared valid after the objections filed by the respondent against the petitioner, and by the petitioner against the respondent had been withdrawn on the next day. The petitioner, the respondent and Abdul Rehman only went to poll on 21-2-1967.

The others having dropped. The counting of votes was done on 27-2-67. The respondent was declared elected. He had secured 5497 votes, the petitioner secured 3235 votes, and Abdul Rehman for feited his security.

(3) The petitioner filed this Election Petition before the Election Commission, New Delhi, on 31st May, 1967 challenging the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds.

4) A Tribunal consisting of Sh. Hari Singh Hardash, District and sessions Judge, Baderwah was constituted to whom the Election Petition was forwarded on 31-5-67 for trial.

(5) The respondent appeared before him and filed his written statement. After hearing the counsellor both the parties, the learned Tribunal drew up, on 6-7-1967 the following three issues :-

1) Whether the allegations contained-in Para 5 (clause 11 relating to contract part) Sub .Paras 1 to 4 were subject matter of petition against the election of the respondent from the Doda Constituency in the general election of 1962. If these allegations have been decided by the Honble High Court against the petitioner in Constitutional reference No.31 of 1964,under Section 70 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. If so whether it will amount to resjudicata in particular reference to the said allegation.

2) Whether the nomination paper of Ghulam Hassan candidate was improperly rejected.

3) Whether the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly accepted and if it materially affected the result of the election in so far as respondent is conerned.

(6) The Petitioner had tried to amend the Election Petition by adding some material particulars, giving specific facts as to some alleged Corrupt practices. The learned District Judge in his quite well considered and concise order dated 29-8-67, did not permit any amendment, and directed for striking out the charges relating to corrupt practices in the original petition on account of indefiniteness, regard being had to the provisions of Section 91 of the State,Representation of people Act.

(7) In the meantime, the Election Tribunal having been abolished by an Act of the State Legislature, the Election Petition was forwarded to this court on 16-9-67, and it same to my court on 19-12-67 for disposal.

(8) The three issues framed by the Election Tribunal have been retained, and no further issue was sought to be, raised before me.

(9) The actual hearing by adducing evidence was commenced from 17-4-67, and upto 8-S67, on certain dates, the petitioner examined some seven witnesses including himself and the respondent eight including himself. Argument of the parties were heard on three dates i. e. 11-5-68, 1-35-68 and 14-5-68. FINDINGS

(10) Issue No: 1 This issue has a bearing on the validity of the nomination papers of the respondent accepted as such by the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny The objection raised by the petitioner before the Returning Officer, to the validity of nomination papers of the respondent was that he was holding some existing contracts in the Public Works Department under the Government. This objection, according to the Returning Officer, had been withdrawn by the petitioner, and similarly, the objection by the respondent against the petitioner was also withdrawn. This fact was, however, controyeued on behalf of the petitioner before me.

(11) The question of withdrawal of the objection by the petitioner against the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document