Allegation of accepting money as illegal gratification.

W. P. Nos. 623, 624 and 799 of 1957.- These applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution arose out of proceedings before the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli, in Election Petition No. 98 of 1957, in which the validity of the election of S. B. Adityan was challenged. It should be convenient to refer to the parties as they have been arrayed in W. P. No. 623 of 1957 preferred by the returned candidate, Adityan.

The petitioner (S. B. Adityan) and respondents 1 to 4 (S. Kandaswami, Athimuthu, Arunachalam and Ramayya) as well as Kosalram, Ahmed Sayeed, Meganathan and Muthu, nine in all, filed their nominations for the election to the State Assembly from Sattankulam Constituency of Trirunelveli district. Kosalram and Meganathan subsequently withdrew their nominations, and three others, respondent 4 (Ramayya), Muthu and Ahmed Sayeed retired from the contest. The petitioner and respondents I to 3 went to polls on 4th March, 1957 and on 6th March, 1957 and the petitioner was declared elected. The first respondent, Kandaswami, filed an election petition on 15th April, 1957 to avoid the election of the petitioner, Adityan. In that petition only four of the nominated candidates were impleaded as respondents. Among the candidates not impleaded were Muthu and Meganathan.

The averments in sub-paragraphs 2 and 4 of paragraph IV-A of the election petition filed by the first respondent were:

“IV-A (2).- Sri M. R. Meganathan was candidate for Sattankulam and Tiruchendur Assembly Constituencies at the election. The first respondent (S. B. Adityan) and his election agent paid him a gift of Rs. 10,000 to induce him to withdraw from being a candidate at the election from Sattankulam Constituency and in pursuance thereof Sri M.R. Meganathan withdrew his candidature at the election from Sattankulam Constituency”.

“(4) One Sri G. E. Muthu, a candidate at the election in this constituency, was paid a gratification of Rs. 5,000 by the first respondent (Sri S.B. Adityan) and his election agent for the purpose of making him retire from the contest and in pursuance thereof he retired from the contest” .

The Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the Act was amended to a considerable extent by Act (XXVII of 1956). Section 82 (b) of the Act so amended runs:

“A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition".

The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of section 82 (b) is the dismissal of the electon petition for which sections 85 and 90 (3) provide. The Election Commission had no occasion to decide whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed under section 85 of the Act. Before the Election Tribunal the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 1957 for a direction to dismiss the election petition under section 90 (3) of the Act on the ground, that failure to implead Muthu and Meganathan, who were candidates against whom the election petitioner had alleged commission of corrupt practices, constituted a contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 82 (b). The first respondent, who was the election petitioner, opposed that application, and in his turn he filed I.A. No. 3 of 1957 to amend the election petition by impleading Muthu and Meganathan. The Tribunal dismissed both the applications.

The petitioner, the returned candidate, preferred W.P. No. 623 of 1957 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Tribunal in I.A. No. 1 of 1957 and also W. P. No. 624 of 1957 for the issue of prohibition to restrain the Tribunal from proceeding further with the enquiry into the election petition, which the petitioner alleged was liable to be dismissed under the mandatory provision of section 90 (3) of the Act.

Kandaswami, the election petitioner and the first respondent in W. P. Nos. 623 and 624 of 1957 preferred W.P. No. 799 of 1957 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside th