Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.- These are petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition and certiorari respectively and arise out of the Election Petition No. 86 of 1957 on the file of the Election Tribunal Madurai.

The Election Petition (No. 86 of 1957) was for setting aside the election of the petitioner Sri Muthiah Chettiar to the Madras State Assembly from the Karaikudi Constituency in Ramanathapuram district. At the election to this Constituency held on 1st March, 1957, Sri Muthiah Chettiar whom we shall hereafter refer as the petitioner, and Sri Sa. Ganesan (to be referred to as the respondent) were the main contesting candidates. As many as eight persons filed nominations for the seat and lour withdrew their nomination papers and the other four went to the polls. The petitioner was declared elected on 5th March, 1957 as having obtained 24, 223 votes as against 23,365 votes secured by the respondents. The two other candidates obtained a very small number of votes and they might be ignored for the purpose of these proceedings. On 15th April, 1957 the respondent filed the Election Petition numbered as E.P. No. 86 of 1957 and the only prayer that it contained was for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate was void. To a petition containing such a prayer the only party necessary to be joined as respondent was, under the terms of section 82 (a) of the Representation of the People Act, the returned candidate, and the present petitioner was therefore the only respondent to this Election Petition.

The grounds upon which the election was sought to be set aside were mainly two: (1) that the petitioner had on the date of his election an interest in a subsisting contract with the State Government which disqualified him for standing for election under section 7 (d) of the Act; (2) that the petitioner was guilty of several acts of corrupt practices which were set out in several paragraphs of the petition. The respondent therefore pleaded that the election of the returned candidate was liable to be declared void under section 100 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Respresentation of the People Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The Election Commission referred this petition to the Election Tribunal, Madurai, under section 86 of the Act.

After the receipt of this petition, the Tribunal posted the petition to 22nd June, 1957 for the appearance of the returned candidate who was the sole respondent to the Election Petition. The petitioner thereupon appeared and filed I.A. No. 1 of 1957. In this application the petitioner prayed that the Tribunal might strike out the following:-

“ Paragraphs 13 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) (i), (h) (ii), (i), (j), (k), (l), 13 (2) (a), (b) (c), 14 (b), 15 (b) and 17 of the Election Petition, as not coming within section 100 (1) (b) of the Act.

(2) Paragraphs 12, 13 (1) (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h) (i), (h) (ii), (i), (j) and (k) of the Election Petition, as not amounting to corrupt practice of undue influence coming under section 123 (2) of the Act.

(3) Paragraphs 13 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Election Petition as not amounting to the corrupt practice of bribery under section 123 (1) of the Act.

(4) Paragraph 17 of the Election Petition arid Schedule III (A) as not amounting to the corrupt practice of procuring the services of Government servants under section 123 (7) of the Act and

(5) paragraph 8 of the Election Petition as not coming under section too (1) (d) (iv) of the Act”,

on the ground that even if proved they would not amount “to corrupt practice” within the relevant provisions of the Act. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying this interpretation of the petition read with the provisions of the Act. He therefore prayed that the petition might be dismissed. I.A. No. 1 of 1957 was heard by the Tribunal and orders thereon passed on 14th July, 1957. The net result of this order was that the points raised in I.A. No. 1 of 1957 were left undecided and were reserved “ for be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document