MALIK, CJ.:-

This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution filed by Dr. Brijendra Swarup.

2. There was an election held for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council from the U.P. Graduates Constituency (West), in the year 1952 and three candidates were elected, they being Dr. Brijendra Swarup, Dr. Ishwari Prasad and Shri Beni Prasad Tandon. Sri Ratan Shukla challenged the election by a petition which he filed on 4-8-1952. The relief claimed by him in the petition was to the following effect:

"It is, therefore, prayed that (1) the election to the U.P. Legislative Council from U.P. Graduates (West) Constituency be dclared wholly void;"

The petitioner also claimed costs and any other consequential relief that may be granted to him. The relief claimed was under S.84(c), Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951). Section 84 is as follows:

"84. A petitioner may claim any one of the following declarations:

(a) That the election of the returned candidate is void.

(b) That the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.

(c) That the election is wholly void."

On any one of these reliefs having been claimed, the Tribunal has to make an appropriate order, under S.98 of the Act, at the conclusion of the trial of the petition. Section 98 provides that:

"98. At the conclusion of the trial of an election petition, the Tribunal shall make an order-

(a) dismissing the election petition; or

(b) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void; or

(c) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected; or

(d) declaring the election to be wholly void." These four reliefs, which the Tribunal can grant, relate back to the three reliefs mentioned in S.84 of the Act. If the petitioner claims that the election is wholly void, then the Tribunal can either dismiss the election petition, or, declare the election to be wholly void.

3. A number of grounds were raised in this petition. They were grounds Nos.10 to 14 and 19 to 28 and a plea was taken, in an objection filed by Dr. Brijendra Swarup, that these paragraphs contained allegations which were not relevant to relief (c) of S.84, Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951). A reference to S.100 of the Act would make the point clear. Section 100 (1) is as follows:

"100(1). If the Tribunal is of opinion-

(a) that the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or of undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election; or

(b) that the election has not been a free election by reason that coercion or intimidation has been exercised or resorted to by any particular community, group or section on another community, group or section to vote or not to vote in any particular way at the election; or

(c) that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination,the Tribunal shall declare the election to be wholly void."

This refers to relief (c) of S.84 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to quote the Explanation. Sub-section (2) of S.100 of the Act mentions the grounds on which the Tribunal shall hold the election of a returned candidate to be void. The grounds given are

"(a) that the election of a returned candidate has been procured or induced, or the result of the election has been materially affected, by any corrupt or illegal practice; or

(b) that any corrupt practice specified in Section 123 has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the connivance of a returned candidate or his agent; or

(c) that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper reception or refusal of a vote or by the reception of any vote which is void, or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act or of any other Ac