Power of Tribunal.

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli, in I.A. No. 4 of 1958 in Election Petition No. 98 of 1957. That order directed a striking out of paragraphs IV-A to IV-E of the election petition, except in regard to two instances of the several corrupt practices alleged.

Election Petition No. 98 of 1957 was filed under the Representation of the People Act of 1951 (which will be hereafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the election of the respondent, S.B. Adityan to the Madras State Assembly from the Satankulam constituency in Tirunelveli district was void. The election to that constituency was held on 4th March, 1957 and 6th March, 1957. The petitioner and the respondent were two amongst the four candidates, who contested the election. The respondent was declared elected by a majority of about 11,207 votes over his nearest rival the petitioner. On 15th April, 1957, the petitioner filed the election petition referred to above. His case was that the election was liable to be set aside as it was procured by several corrupt practices. The main heads of charge against respondent were that there was bribery of rival and intending candidates and of the voters on a large scale, that there was hiring of vehicles for the use of the voters, that the assistance of the police force was procured in furtherance of the prospects of the election, that there was a publication of false statement against petitioner and that the account of election expenses submitted by the returned candidate was not correct.

A written statement was filed by the respondent on 12th July, 1957, denying ‘the several averments contained in the petition. There was a complaint in the written statement that full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices were not set out in the petition. The respondent also claimed that sub-paragraphs 6 (b), 6 (c) and 7 of paragraph IV-A should be struck out as lacking in particulars.

Issues were settled on 29th July, 1957. Issue No. 9 ran as follows:-

“Are sub-paragraphs 1 to 7 of paragraph IV-A, paragraphs IV-B, IV-C1 , IV-D and IV-E bad for want of full and necessary particulars.”

There was no issue, however, as to whether the petition was liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of particulars nor did the respondent insist on issue No. 9 being tried as a preliminary issue.

On 5th August, 1957, the respondent filed I.A. 1 of 1957 for a direction to dismiss the election petition under section 90 (3) of the Act on the ground of failure to implead Muthu and Meganathan, who were candidates, against whom the petitioner in the Election Petition had alleged commission of corrupt practices byway of payment of bribes by the respondent to induce them to withdraw from the contest. After contest the Election Tribunal dismissed that application. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution were thereafter initiated to quash that order but that met with no success. The judgment of this Court in the application for writ has been reported in Adityan v. Kandaswami1. The matter was thereafter taken by way of appeal to the Supreme Court, which by its judgment dated 20th May, 1958, affirmed the judgment of this Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in Adityan v. Kandaswami2.

The election petition was thereafter taken up by the Tribunal on 25th July, 1958. It was then adjourned to 11th August, 1958, for evidence. The petitioned is stated to have taken steps for that hearing date, by summoning witnesses and documents. In the meanwhile the respondent took out an application, I.A. No. 4 of 1958 to strike out substantially the entirety of the petition, on the ground that it was devoid of full particulars. That application was posted along with the election petition and was heard on the 11th and the 12th August. On behalf of the petitioner it appears to have been contended that the petition contained all the necessary particulars which the petitio