Allahbad High Court
M.P.MEHROTRA
Ram Lal Singh - Appellant
Versus
The District Judge, Fatehpur - Respondent
Decided On : 03/05/1975
ELECTION PETITION - ABATEMENT - DEATH OF SOLE PETITIONER - U.P. KSHETRA SAMITIS (ELECTION OF PRAMUKHS AND UP-PRAMUKHS AND SETTLEMENT OF ELECTION DISPUTES) RULES, 1962, RULE 41 (2) - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951, SECTION 112 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, ORDER 22 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
An election petition was filed challenging the election of the returned candidate, Ram Lal Singh, who was declared elected as Pramukh of Kshetra Samiti, Teliyani District Fatehpur. The petition was allowed by the Election Tribunal, and the election of Ram Lal Singh was declared invalid, while the petitioner, Jai Ram Singh, was declared duly elected. During the pendency of the appeal against the decision of the Election Tribunal, Jai Ram Singh died. The appellant, Ram Lal Singh, filed an application praying that the appeal be allowed, the order of the District Judge be set aside, and the election petition be directed to have abated. Alternatively, he sought that the name of the deceased respondent be struck off and a note be made of his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the election petition abated upon the death of the sole petitioner, Jai Ram Singh, as per Rule 41 (2) of the U.P. Kshetra Samitis (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1962. The court distinguished the provisions of Rule 41 from Section 112 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows for the substitution of a petitioner in case of death. The court also held that the unsuccessful candidates, who were impleaded as respondents in the election petition, did not have a locus standi to challenge the election of the returned candidate as they had not filed any election petition themselves.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition abated upon the death of the sole petitioner? 2. Whether the unsuccessful candidates, impleaded as respondents in the election petition, had a locus standi to challenge the election of the returned candidate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 41 (2) of the U.P. Kshetra Samitis (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1962, and held that an election petition abates upon the death of the sole petitioner. The court found that there was no provision for the substitution of a petitioner in case of death, unlike Section 112 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. The court held that the unsuccessful candidates, impleaded as respondents in the election petition, did not have a locus standi to challenge the election of the returned candidate as they had not filed any election petition themselves. The court explained that the limited right granted to unsuccessful candidates in an election petition was with reference to the declaration sought by the petitioner that he himself or any other candidate had been duly elected.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellant's application, set aside the order of the District Judge, and directed that the election petition had abated in consequence of the death of the sole petitioner. There was no order as to costs.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the application are these; an election took place to elect the Pramukh of Kshetra Samiti. Teliyani District Fatehpur and the appellant. Ram Lal singh, was declared to have been elected. There were four contesting candidates, including Ram Lal Singh. One of the unsuccessful candidates. Jai Ram Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) filed an election petition challenging the election of Ram Lal Singh and in the petition besides candidates were also impleaded as opposite parties. The said two unsuccessful candidates are Balkrishna Dubey and Sukh Ram who are respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein.
In the election petition a declaration was sought that the election of the returned candidate Ram Lal Singh was void and that the petitioner, Jai Ram Singh, had been duly elected the Pramukh. The returned candidate contested the petition but the same was allowed by the Election Tribunal and the entire relief sought in the petition was granted i.e., the election of the returned candidate, Ram Lal Singh, was declared to be invalid and the petitioner, Jai Ram Singh, was declared to be duly elected Pramukh. It may be stated that the petition was allowed "on technical points and for no fault of respondent No. 1."
3. Against the decision of the Election Tribunal the instant appeal was filed in this Court. During its pendency Jai Ram Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, and the petitioner before the Election Tribunal, died on 31-10-1974. After the said death the appellant moved the aforesaid application and in support of it I have heard Shri V.K.S. Chaudhari at length. In opposition Sri K.M. Dayal has made his submissions.
4. Sri Chaudhari has contended that the application should succeed on both the two grounds or on either of them firstly, because the petitioner, Jai Ram Singh, who filed the election petition and who died during the pendency of the appeal, had a personal cause of action and with his death the same came to an end. In other words, the cause of action has not survived and, therefore, the petition stands abated and the appeal accordingly should be allowed and it be declared that the petition has abated in consequence of the death of the petitioner and secondly, the election petition stands abated upon the death of the petitioner by virtue of Rule 41 (2) of the U. P. Kshetra Samitis (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1962 which should be held to be applicable not only to the proceedings before the Election Tribunal but also to the appellate stage on the ground that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings before the Election Tribunal. Learned counsels contention is that it makes no difference whether the death of the petitioner occurs at the trial stage or at the stage of the appeal. He has placed reliance on the following cases:
Sheodan Singh v. Mohan Lal, (AIR 1969 SC 1024); Collector Varanasi v. Gauri Shanker, (AIR 1968 SC 384): Subodh v. Ajit Kumar, (AIR 1967 SC 498): Girjanandini v. Bijendra, (AIR 1967 SC 1124): Syedna Taher v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1958 SC 253): N.S. Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Bros., (AIR 1953 SC 357): Ram Swarup Das v. Rameshwar Das, AIR 1950 Pat 184); Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma Pin, (AIR 1934 PC 81); Hem Singh v. Basant Das
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.