DESAI, C.J. :- This is a petition for certiorari (or any other suitable writ or order) for the quashing of orders passed by an election Tribunal on 9-2-1963 and 17-8-1962 in an election petition pending before it. The petitioner, Dr. Jawahar Lal opposite party No. 2, and opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 contested election for membership of the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and the petitioner was declared duly elected as having secured a majority of valid votes. Opposite party No. 2 (who will be referred to as the opposite party, because the other opposite parties, though served with the notice of the petition, have remained absent) filed a petition under Sec. 81 of the Representation of the People Act challenging the petitioner's election on several grounds including that the result of the election was materially affected by the irregularities committed by the Returning Officer and sought the relief of declarations that the petitioner's election was void and that the opposite party was duly elected as a member and other reliefs with which we are not concerned. Among the irregularities mentioned in paragraph 18 of the petition were counting of a thousand invalid votes in the petitioner's favour, wrongly rejecting many valid votes cast in the opposite party's favour and counting in the petitioner's favour a large number of votes cast in favour of the opposite party and other defeated candidates. No particulars of the votes involved in these irregularities were given in the petition. The petition was verified on 11-4-1962, but the date of its presentation is not known. It was transferred by the Election Commissioner to the Tribunal consisting of Shri R.P. Dikshit, Additional District Judge, Allahabad, in July 1962.

2. An election cannot be called in question except by an election petition presented to the Election Commission within a certain period. An election petition must contain "a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies" and "full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges". The reliefs that can be claimed in an election petition are a declaration that the election of any returned candidate is void and a declaration that the petitioners or any other candidate has been duly elected. On receipt of an election petition the Election Commissioner has to refer it to an Election Tribunal for trial. Every election petition is to be tried by the Tribunal, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the C.P.C., to the trial of suits; see Secs. 80, 81, 83(1)(a), 88 and 90 (1). Sec. 97 lays down that when in an election petition a declaration that any candidate other than the returned candidate has been duly elected is claimed, the returned candidate may give evidence to prove that -

"the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election :

Provided that the returned candidate …. Shall not be entitled to give such evidence unless he has within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial, given notice to the Tribunal of his intention to do so and has also given the security and the further security referred to in Sees. 117 and 118 respectively."

Every such notice must be accompanied by the statement and particulars required by Sec. 83 in the case of an election petition. The date fixed for the respondents to appear before the Tribunal and answer the claim or claims made in an election petition is the date of its commencement within the meaning of this provision. Sec. 100 sets out the grounds for declaring an election to be void and the material provision is Sub-Sec. (1)(d), which is as follows :-

"(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected -

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice …… or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejectio