Rajamannar, C.J.-These two appeals are from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., disposing of two writ petitions Nos.719 and 723 of 1954. By the same judgment, the learned Judge disposed of two other writ petitions also ; but we are not concerned with them. The two petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a. writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Election Tribunal, Madras, in Election Petition No.28 of 1954, and the proceedings of the Tribunal in I.A.Nos. 7 and 8 of 1954 in the said Election Petition, dated 1st November, 1954 and to quash the same.

There was a bye-election for two seats in the Madras Legislative Council from the Graduates’ Constituency. There were four candidates for the two seats, namely, Dr.John, Dr.A.Srinivasan, Dr.M.Santhosham, and Mr.G.Vasanta Pai. The election was by postal ballot. The date of the poll was 8th April, 1954. On 9th April, 1954, the votes were scrutinised and counted, and Dr.John and Dr. Srinivasan were declared elected as having polled the largest number of votes. The result of the election was published in the Fort St.George Gazette on 12th April, 1954. On 21st July, 1954, Mr. G.Vasanta Pai filed an election petition, subsequently numbered as No.28 of 1954, calling in question the said election. The two returned candidates, as well as the third candidate, Dr.Santhosham, were impleaded as respondents 1 to 3. The Election Commissioner, New Delhi, constituted an Election Tribunal at Madras for the trial of the petition. The petitioner prayed for an order (a) declaring the election to be wholly void, (b) declaring the election of both the returned candidates as void, (c) giving a finding that the 1st respondent has been guilty of the corrupt practices specified in paragraphs 8, 9 (a), and 11, and the illegal practice specified in paragraph 12 of the petition, and the 2nd respondent has been guilty of the corrupt practices specified in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the petition, and (d) for costs of the petition. The petition contained several allegations, which were directed against the first two respondents, Dr. John and Dr. Srinivasan individually, and also allegations and circumstances which would render the whole election void, as for example, that the election was not a free election. Dr.John and Dr.Srinivasan took out two applications I.A.Nos. 7 and 8 of 1954 respectively, inter alia praying that the Tribunal may be pleased to (1) direct the striking out of prayers (b ) and (c) in paragraph 18 of the petition and (2) direct the striking out of paragraphs 5 to 7, the latter part of paragraph 8, and paragraphs 9 to 16. The main grounds on which these applications were taken out were two: (1) that under the Representation of the People Act, a petitioner in an election petition can claim only one of the reliefs specified in section 84 of the Act and therefore the petitioner in the present election petition was not entitled to claim both the reliefs, namely, that the whole election was void and also that the election of the two returned candidates, respondents 1 and 2, should be set aside, and (2) that the petition in so far as it prayed for the relief of having the election of the returned candidates set aside, was barred by time, as it had not been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by rule 119 (a) of the Rules framed under the Representation of the People Act. The Election Tribunal found that neither ground was sustainable and rejected both the petitions. It is to quash the order of the Election Tribunal dismissing these applications that Writ Petitions 719 and 723 were filed. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., agreed with the Election Tribunal on both the points and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these two appeals.

Before us, the same points were again pressed. The first ground of attack against the election petition, namely, that the petitioner was not entitled to claim more than one relief in his petition is founded on the term

Click Here to Read the rest of this document