Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
M. Hidayatullah, C. J. and V. R. Sen, J.
INAYATULLAH KHAN - Appellant
Versus
DIWANCHAND MAHAJAN - Respondents
First Appeal 130 Of 1957
Decided On : 04/26/1958
The election of the returned candidate was challenged on the grounds of irregularities and defects in the conduct of the election and the counting, which resulted in a materially affected result. The court examined the evidence and found that the result of the poll was not materially affected by the improper acceptance of a nomination paper. However, the court found breaches of the election law and rules by the Returning Officer and his assistants, including the refusal to recount votes, the refusal to give copies of all the relevant documents in time, and corrections made in the record of the elections, even after the declaration of the result. The court also found that the Returning Officer and the appellant were in close association and that the Returning Officer had displayed an interest and association with the appellant which greatly harmed the prospects of the appellant's rivals. The court held that the Returning Officer's conduct in refusing to recount the votes was improper and that a recount should have been allowed. The court also held that the counting was not properly done and that there were errors in it. The court further held that the hiring of tongas and trucks by persons interested in the appellant and for and on his behalf amounted to corrupt practice. The court also found that the appellant had used his influence to secure his election by the Returning Officer, Sardar Amarjit Singh, Mahamood Hasan, and one Naseem. The court concluded that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices and that the election should be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The election of the returned candidate, Inayatullah, was challenged on the grounds of irregularities and defects in the conduct of the election and the counting, which resulted in a materially affected result. The main allegations were that Nandlal, a disqualified candidate, was allowed to contest the election, that the result of the poll was materially affected by the improper acceptance of Nandlal's nomination paper, that there were breaches of the election law and rules by the Returning Officer and his assistants, that the appellant had used his influence to secure his election by the Returning Officer, Sardar Amarjit Singh, Mahamood Hasan, and one Naseem, and that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the result of the poll was not materially affected by the improper acceptance of Nandlal's nomination paper. However, the court found breaches of the election law and rules by the Returning Officer and his assistants, including the refusal to recount votes, the refusal to give copies of all the relevant documents in time, and corrections made in the record of the elections, even after the declaration of the result. The court also found that the Returning Officer and the appellant were in close association and that the Returning Officer had displayed an interest and association with the appellant which greatly harmed the prospects of the appellant's rivals. The court held that the Returning Officer's conduct in refusing to recount the votes was improper and that a recount should have been allowed. The court also held that the counting was not properly done and that there were errors in it. The court further held that the hiring of tongas and trucks by persons interested in the appellant and for and on his behalf amounted to corrupt practice. The court also found that the appellant had used his influence to secure his election by the Returning Officer, Sardar Amarjit Singh, Mahamood Hasan, and one Naseem. The court concluded that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices and that the election should be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the result of the poll was materially affected by the improper acceptance of Nandlal's nomination paper. 2. Whether there were breaches of the election law and rules by the Returning Officer and his assistants. 3. Whether the appellant had used his influence to secure his election by the Returning Officer, Sardar Amarjit Singh, Mahamood Hasan, and one Naseem. 4. Whether the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the result of the poll was not materially affected by the improper acceptance of Nandlal's nomination paper because the evidence showed that Nandlal had received a majority of the valid votes. 2. The court held that there were breaches of the election law and rules by the Returning Officer and his assistants, including the refusal to recount votes, the refusal to give copies of all the relevant documents in time, and corrections made in the record of the elections, even after the declaration of the result. The court held that these breaches were improper and that a recount should have been allowed. 3. The court held that the appellant had used his influence to secure his election by the Returning Officer, Sardar Amarjit Singh, Mahamood Hasan, and one Naseem. The court found that the Returning Officer and the appellant were in close association and that the Returning Officer had displayed an interest and association with the appellant which greatly harmed the prospects of the appellant's rivals. The court also found that the appellant had hired tongas and trucks to transport voters to the polling stations and that he had used his influence to get government officials to support his candidacy. 4. The court held that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices and that the election should be set aside.
Final Decision: The court set aside the election of the returned candidate, Inayatullah.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an election in the Sehore double-member constituency to the Legisla-tive Assembly of this State. The election took place on 25th february, 1957 and the results were declared on 1st March, 1957. Originally, six persons had offered to contest the two seats, but one of them (Amarchand)withdrew, leaving five in the field. Of these Umraosingh and Mannulal contested the reserved seat, while the remaining three, Inayatullah, Mahajan, and Nandlal contested the general seat. As a result of the poll declared on 1st March, the appellant Inayatullah was declared elected to the general seat while Umraosingh was also declared elected to the reserved seat. The result of the poll was as follows :
Umraosingh
23,757 Votes (Reserved)
Inapatullah
20,696 " (General)
C. Mahajan
20,616 " (General)
Mannulal ??
16,599 " (Reserved)
Nandlal ???
8,997 " (General)
( 2 ) THE election was questioned by Diwan-chand Mahajan alone. One of the other candidates Mannulal in his reply raised a ground that at Sawa-da polling station some of the voting papers which were not inserted but were found lying scattered on top of the ballot boxes were put inside them by the presiding officer and were counted. We mention this point at this stage because we shall have to consider it in the sequel.
( 3 ) THE petition of Mahajan is a long document and runs into several sheets. It alleged inter alia the facts on which the election was challenged, and some of these grounds have been upheld by the Tribunal. When the appeal of Inayatullah was admitted, notices were caused to be issued to Mahajan, Nandlal and amarchand. The appeal did not make Umraosingh and Mannulal parties. Mahajan in his turn filed a cross-objection challenging the election on grounds, which were decided against him by the Tribunal, and incidentally he made an application for joining Umraosingh and Mannulal as parties for the purposes of his cross-objection only. We heard in the beginning two preliminary objections raised by the rival parries, mahajan contending that the appeal as filed without joining Umraosingh and mannulal was defective and incompetent, and Inayatullah and Umraosingh contending that the cross-objection was not tenable under the Representation of the People Act. We propose to decide these objections at this stage.
( 4 ) THE Representation of the People Act has been described as a Code by itself. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210, that the election law is a special law, that it is not a branch of common law, and that the implications of the common law cannot be brought to bear upon matters arising under it. They stated that the trial of an election petition was neither an action at law nor a suit in equity and was unknown to the common law. According to their Lordships, the resolution of all election disputes must be limited to the extent they are provided for in the Representation of the People Act. Basing his arguments upon this, Shri Dabir, who appeared for Inayatullah, contended that the cross-objection was untenable. Reference was made to Section 82 of the representation of the People Act, and it was contended that for the purpose of the appeal the same parties had to be before this Court as were joined before the election Tribunal.
( 5 ) WE are quite clear, and indeed the law is well settled, that an election dispute can only be conducted and tried in accordance with the provisions of the representation of the People Act and the Rules made thereunder. There is no general power which the Courts can exercise in these matters and the provisions of that law have to be strictly followed. If one were to go by the express provision of the law with regard to appeals and cross-objections in the Act, one would have to say that though an appeal has been provided for there is no express mention that a cross-objection lies. But there is provision in the Representation of the People Act whi
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
