MOOTHAM, J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Sri Audesh Pratap Singh, and respondents Nos. 4 to 11 were candidates for election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Bikapur East General Constituency In the district of Faizabad at the last general election, and on the 3rd February, 1952, the petitioner was declared by the Returning Officer to be duly elected. On the 14th May the respondent No. 4, Sri Mahadeo, filed an election petition challenging the election, of the petitioner on a number of grounds including the exercise of undue influence on the electors in a large number of villages in the constituency.

2. The election petition was referred to an Election Tribunal sitting at Gorakhpur of which the first respondent is the Chairman and the second and third respondents are members. Objection is taken in the petition now before us to two orders passed by the Election Tribunal. In his petition before the latter body Sri Mahadeo claimed two main reliefs, namely,

(a) that the election of Sri Audesh Pratap Singh be declared void and that he, Sri Mahadeo, be declared duly elected, and

(b) that in case he be not declared duly elected the entire election be declared to be void and a re-election be ordered. 3. It was contended before the Tribunal that as under S. 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sri Mahadeo could claim only one relief the petition was defective and should be dismissed. After hearing argument, the Tribunal rejected the submission by an order dated the 6th January, 1953. That is the first order to which objection is taken.

4. The petition was accompanied by a list as is required under S. 83(2) of the Act, the list being in three Sections described as List I, List II and List III. In List II, Kurwa, a hamlet of village raising Mau, was specified as the place at which interference with the free exercise of their electoral rights by voters took place. On the 20th November, 1952 Sri Audesh Pratap Singh filed his written statement. Issues were framed and thereafter evidence was recorded. On the 27th January, 1953, objection was taken on behalf of Sri Audesh Pratap Singh to evidence being led by Sri Mahadeo with regard to corrupt practices particulars of which were not included in the List accompanying the petition.

After hearing counsel the Tribunal, on the 28th January, 1953, passed the following order :

"We have heard the learned counsel of the parties at length. Section 83(2) lays down that the petition shall be accompanied by a list signed and verified in like manner setting forth full particulars Of any corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner alleges included as full a statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed such, corrupt or illegal practices and the date of commission of each of such practices. The List II filed with the petition does not comply with this provision. The effect of non-compliance can be against the petitioner involving even rejection of the petition. So we think it proper to give an opportunity to the petitioner to give further and better particulars."

On the following day the fourth respondent appears to have filed an application for leave to amend the consolidated list accompanying his petition in a number of particulars, and on the 30th January the Tribunal, having again heard counsel for the parties at length, made the second order to which objection is taken.

"Section 83(3) of the Act lays down that the List can be amended as well as further and better particulars can be given. The petitioner seeks to amend the List and he gives further and better particulars of the instances mentioned in Schedule 2 of the List. We think the prayer of the petitioner as contained in the statement he has given today reasonable and so we allow the amendment so far as Items Nos. 3, 10 and 11 of this application are concerned, but the petitioner will have to pay Rs. 30/- as costs to the opposite party."