Back
Allahbad High Court
S.S.DHAVAN,K.B.ASTHANA
Brijmohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Election Tribunal Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03/12/1964
ELECTION - Tribunal - Review of Orders - Jurisdiction - Election Tribunal constituted under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has no power to review its orders like a Civil Court under S. 114 read with O. 47, R. 1 or S. 151, Civil P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a winning candidate in an election, filed a notice of recrimination under S. 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, along with a statement including particulars of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the election petitioner. The election petitioner applied for the amendment of his petition by including a list of votes alleged to have been cast in his favor but wrongly rejected and a list of votes alleged to have been wrongly counted for the winning candidate. The Tribunal allowed the amendment and the winning candidate filed an additional written statement to include the allegation that numerous votes cast in his favor were wrongly rejected and several votes cast in his favor were counted as votes in favor of other candidates. The election petitioner applied for the review of the order allowing the amendment, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The winning candidate challenged the order of the Tribunal in the High Court under Art. 226.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Election Tribunal constituted under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has no power to review its orders like a Civil Court under S. 114 read with O. 47, R. 1 or S. 151, Civil P.C. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and has only such powers as are conferred on it by statute expressly or by necessary implication. It has none of the inherent powers of an ordinary Court.
Issues: 1. Whether an Election Tribunal constituted under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has the power to review its orders like a Civil Court under S. 114 read with O. 47, R. 1 or S. 151, Civil P.C.? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal dated 9th February 1963 reviewing its previous decision is without jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An Election Tribunal constituted under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not a Court but a creature of statute. It has only such powers as are conferred on it by statute expressly or by necessary implication. It has none of the inherent powers of an ordinary Court. 2. The power to review an order is a matter of power and not of procedure. Therefore, an Election Tribunal has no power to review its orders like a Civil Court under S. 114 read with O. 47, R. 1 or S. 151, Civil P.C.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the order of the Tribunal dated 9th February 1963 reviewing its previous decision and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the case exactly as if that order had not been passed.
DHAVAN, J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by a respondent in the election petition which is pending against him. It involves an important question of law namely, whether a Tribunal constituted under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) has the power to review its orders like a Civil Court under S. 114 read with O. 47, H. 1 or S. 151, Civil P.C. The facts are these. The petitioner Sri Brij Mohan Lal and the respondent Shankar Lal along with five other candidates contested the election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 302 Banda Assembly Constituency in the general election of 1962. The polling took place on 25th February 1962 and the result was declared on the same day. The petitioner secured 9173 votes against the respondent Shanker Lal's 8903 and was elected by a majority of 270 votes. The votes of the other five candidates were respectively 5218 (Praja Socialist Party), 3109 (Ram Raj Parishad), 1575 (Communist Party), 1300 (Jan Sangh) and 772 (Independent). Thus the vote was very close and the petitioner obtained a little more than the one-third of the total votes polled.
The respondent Shanker Lal filed a petition under S. 81 of the Act challenging the petitioner's election on various grounds including a charge that the petitioner was guilty of corrupt practices. He also alleged that the counting of votes was defective as a result of which a large number of village votes of the election petitioner (respondent before us) had been invalidly rejected and a large number of invalid votes had been counted in favour of the winning candidate (Brij Mohan La! The petitioner before us). He also alleged that there was "foul play in counting of ballot papers" due to the influence of the brother of the winning candidate who was the Nazir in the Collectorate. He further complained that his application for a recount was illegally rejected. He claimed to have secured more votes than the winning candidate (Brij Mohan Lal the petitioner before us), He asked for two reliefs - (1) that the election of the winning candidate be declared void and (2) he be declared as duly elected from the 302 Banda Constituency.
2. An Election Tribunal was appointed to try the petition and notice was issued to the respondent Brij Mohan Lal (the petitioner before us), and he filed on 14th July 1962 - within the prescribed period of fourteen days a notice of recrimination under Sec. 97 of the Act. This notice was accompanied by a statement including particulars of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the election petitioner during the election. It is common ground that the statement did not include the ground under Sec. 100(1)(d) (iii) or (iv) of the Act. On the same date the petitioner before us filed a written statement in reply to the election petition.
3. After the framing of issues the election petitioner Shanker Lal (respondent before us) applied for the amendment of his petition by including a list of votes alleged to have been cast in his favour but wrongly rejected and a fast of votes alleged to have been wrongly counted for the winning candidate and also another list of votes alleged to have been wrongly counted in favour of the other losing candidate. This application was allowed by the Tribunal on 17th December 1962 and the election petitioner amended his petition accordingly.
Thereupon, the winning candidate Brij Mohan Lal (petitioner before us) after inspecting the ballot paper made an application for the amendment of his recriminatory statement so as to include the allegation that numerous votes cast in his (winning candidate) favour were wrongly rejected and several votes cast in his favour were counted as votes in favour of other candidates and several invalid votes were wrongly counted in favour of the election petitioner. He also filed an additional written statement for this purpose. This application was opposed by the election petitioner
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
