( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which raises two questions of election law of some importance.

( 2 ) THE facts are these: Five persons, who are respondents Nos. 5 to 9, were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Luck-now District (Central) Constituency at a bye-election held on the 27th February, 1955. At this election Srimati Sheoraiwati Nehru was declared elected and thereupon Sri Triloki Singh, respondent No. 5, filed an election petition challenging the election of the successful candidate on a number of grounds, it being alleged that corrupt practices had been committed at the election.

( 3 ) ON the 14th June. 1958, the Election Tribunal constituted to hear the petition served upon the petitioner who is a Minister in the Government of the Uttar Pradesh. a notice under the proviso to Section 99 (1) of the Representation of the People Act. 1951. calling upon him to appear before the Tribunal and to show cause why he should not be named as a person who had been proved at the trial to have been guilty of the corrupt practice defined in Section 123 Clause (8) of that Act; namely that as an agent of Srimati Sheoraiwati Nehru he obtained or procured the assistance of a person serving under the State Government for the furtherance of the prospects of srimati Sheorajwfti Nehrus election. The petitioner was thereafter represented before the Tribunal which proceeded to record evidence as to whether the petitioner, and another person whom a similar notice had been issued, should be so named. A submission was then made by a learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, as the latter was a member Of the State legislature, the Tribunal had not. In view of the provisions of Article 192 of the Constitution jurisdiction to proceed with its enquiry under section 99 of the Representation of the People Act. and that the question whether the petitioner was disqualified for membership of the State Legislative Council was a matter for decision by the Governor to whom the question ought to be referred. The Tribunal rejected this submission by an order dated the 2nd August, 1956, and it is the validity of that order which is the subject of the present petition.

( 4 ) THE order of the Tribunal has in this Court been attacked on two grounds. The first contention is that which was advanced before the Tribunal, namely that in view of the provisions of Article 192 of the Constitution the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into the question whether the petitioner has committed a corrupt practice, and the second is that the particulars of the act attributed to the petitioner do not to law amount to a corrupt practice.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the argument en the first of these questions it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as it stood prior, to its amendement by Act 27 of 1956, and of the Constitution Section 98 of the Act enumerates four alternative orders which may be made by an Election Tribunal at the conclusion of an election trial and Section 99 so far as is material, provided that.

"99. (1) At the time of making an order under Section 98 the Tribunal shall also make an order (a) Where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt or illegal practice having been committed at the election, regarding (i) a finding whether any corrupt or illegal practice has or has not been proved to have been committed by, or with the connivance of, any candidate or his agent at the election, and the nature of that corrupt or illegal practice; and (ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice and the nature of that practice. . . . . . . . . . Provided that no person shall be named in the order under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) unless (a) he has been given notice to appear be--fore the Tribunal and to show cause why he should not be so named;,. ;.