The Tribunal has the inherent power to allow the amendment of an election petition to rectify a clerical mistake and can compel the production of documents under Section 92(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

RANDHIR SINGH, J.:- This petition for a writ of certiorari, prohibition or any other appropriate writ is directed against the Election Tribunal of Lucknow and the members thereof and also some other persons.

2. It appears that in the bye-election to the U.P. Legislative Assembly, Budaun North Constituency, the petitioner was elected a member of the U.P. Legislative Assembly. An election petition was thereafter instituted before the Election Tribunal for the setting aside of the election on various grounds mentioned in the application made before the Tribunal. After the application came up for hearing, the petitioner made an application for the amendment of the lists and paragraph 4(a) of the election petition. The main ground on which amendment was asked for was that some matters had been left vague and some particulars had not been given. The Election Tribunal ordered the petitioner to furnish better particulars and to make his allegations definite in certain matters and the petition for amendment which followed was allowed. The effect of the amendment was that paragraph 4(a) of the election petition was ordered to be amended by the addition of the words "by respondent No.1 and his agents and workers mentioned in list A", after the words "to vote" in the second line of para.4 and before the words "on the ground of". There were certain other amendments which were ordered to be made in the lists appended to the election petition.

3. The application for amendment was opposed on behalf of Pandit Sri Niwas, the successful candidate, on the ground that the amendment could not be made under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act but this contention of Sri Niwas was not allowed and the amendment was ordered on 16-2-1954. On 26-4-1954, Sri Niwas then presented this petition asking for the issue of a writ of certiorari and certain other reliefs mentioned in the petition for writ.

4. The first point which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no provision in the Representation of the People Act under which a person could be allowed to amend his petition for setting aside an election and the Tribunal was not competent to allow an amendment of the petition. With regard to the amendment of the lists, it is conceded that it was open to the Tribunal to make an order for the amendment of the lists or to call for further and better particulars under S.83, sub-cl. (3) of the Representation of the People Act.

The only point, therefore, for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal allowing the amendment of paragraph 4(a) of the petition before the Election Tribunal was an order passed without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. A number of cases have been cited for and against the contention that such a power of amendment does not vest in the Tribunal but we feel that the question which is before us can be decided on a comparatively simple point. It is always inherent in a Court or Tribunal which has the power to decide a case, to order rectification of clerical or accidental errors and omissions.

In the present case the ground on which paragraph 4(a) of the application before the Tribunal was allowed to be amended was that it was a clerical mistake. The Tribunal has remarked that a perusal of the petition shows that the words now sought to be incorporated in paragraph 4(a) were only left out by mistake and that it was the intention of Sri Asrar Ahmad to plead all that he had mentioned in paragraph 4(a) with reference to the respondent. Under these circumstances the Tribunal thought that the words which were sought to be incorporated by the amendment were only left out by mistake.If a Court or Tribunal has the right to amend such mistakes, the merits of the application for amendment cannot be gone into in a petition for writ.

A Court or Tribunal which is entitled to pass a correct order may also pass an incorrect order but that would not be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of t