T. C. BASAPPA v. T. NAGAPPA & Anr.

The facts material for purposes of this appeal may be briefly narrated as follows : The appellant and pondent No. 1, as well as eight other persons, who figu- red as respondents Nos. 2 to 9 in the proceeding before the High Court, were duly nominated candidates for election the general election of that Tarikere Constituency at State held in January, 1952. Five of these nominated the pres candidates withdrew ,cribed period and the election was between including the appellant and respondent No. 1. The polling took place on January, 1952, and the votes were counted on the 26th of January following. As a result '> of the counting the respondent No. 1 was found to have r secured 8,093 votes which was largest in number and the appellant followed him closely having obtained 8,059 votes. The three candidates, who were respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 before the High Court, · got !respectively 6,239, 1,644 and 1,142 votes. The Returning Officer declared the respondent No. 1 to be the successful candidate and this declaration was pub- --. , lished in the Mysore Gazette on the 11th February, · 1952. The respondent No. 1 lodged his return of elec tion expenses with the necessary declaration sometime return was published on the 31st March, 1952. The appellant thereafter filed a. petition before the Election Commission, challenging the validity of the election, inter alia, on the grounds · that there was violation of the election rules to certain matters and that himself or through his agents were guilty of a number of major corrupt practices which materially affected the result of the election. The petitioner prayed for a declaration the election of respondent No. 1 was void and that he himself was duly elected. This peti- . tion, which bears date, 10th of April, 1952, was sent by the Election Commission and was registered post the, latter cin the 14th of April,- , actually received by , following. The Election Commission the Election Tribunal at matter for determination by the respondent No. 1 by ' that and notice of this in regard r'. referred ;:, 'y J ...,,_ .. f--, <J 1954 T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another. Mukherjea J, S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 253 an application for declaring the entire election same time it on the Shimoga and it came up for hearing before 25th of October, 1952. On that date the appellant the petition, for amendment of it as one under Order VI, rule 17, of the Civil heading Procedure Code, and the only amendment sought for was a modification of the prayer clause by adding a to be void. It prayer: relief was stated at the could not be granted, in the alter the petitioner would, native pray for the relief originally claimed by him, that the election of respondent No. 1 should namely, be declared to be void and the petitioner himself be the elected candidate at the election. Des to be the objection of respondent No. 1, the Tribunal granted this prayer for amendment. The hearing of the case then proceeded and on the averments made by the respective parties, as many as 27 issues were framed. Of them, issues Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14 are material for our present purpose and they stand as follows : in case this (1) Has there been infringement of the rules relat ing to the time of commencement of poll by reason of the fact that the polling at Booth No. 1 for Ajjampur fixed at Ajjampur to take place at 8 A.M. did not really commence until about half an hour later as alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition ? the 1st (5) Did respondent hire and procure a motor bus which was a service bus running between Tarikere and Hiriyur, belonging to one Ahmed Jan, as alleged in paragraph 1 of the particulars and thereby commit the corrupt practice referred to in it ? ( 6)b Didf tGhe 1st respondent take thf e hassishtance of a num er o to urt er t e pros pects of his election as alleged in paragraph 2 of the list of particulars ? overnment servants (11) Is return of election expenses lodged by the 1st respondent false in material particulars and has in the return of the ·1st election · expenses, expenses incurred by him in connec tion with the election which would easily exceed the stated respondent omitted to include j, -· sanctioned limit of Rs. 5,000 as per particulars in paragr:aph 7 of the list of particulars ? ' . ~ . ' . .•954 ·r. C. Basapp• .v. •T.Nagappa .and Amith"· .Mukher:fea J. 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] (12) Has , the election ·of the 1st induced by the respondent been said corrupt practices that · the ··election has been materially procured and with the result affected ? ( 14) Would obtained a majority of votes had 1t not been for the aforesaid ·corrupt and illegal practices on the part of the first res pondent? petitioner judgment ·of the Tribunal The Tribunal by a majority of 2 to 1 found all these ·issues in favour of the petitioner and against the res pondent No. 1 and on the strength of their findings on these issues, declared the election of ·respondent No. 1 to , be void and the petitioner to have been duly elected . the 15th of is dated . The res- January, 1953. On the 5th February, 1953, pondent No. 1 presented an application before Mysore High Court under article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of certio- praying for a writ or direction rari calling for the in Election Petition No. 1 of 1952- Election Tribunal 53 and quashing the same including the order pro nounced by the · Tribunal · as mentioned above. This application was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Medappa C.J. and Balakrishnaiya J. and by the learned judgment dated the 11th Judges allowed the petition of respondent No. 1 and directed the issue of a writ of certiorari as prayed for. It is against this judgment that the appellant has come up to this Court on the strength of a certificate grant- ed by the High Court under articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. records of the proceeding of January, 1954, , \.. • 'Y ,-' is, in support of the appeal, The substantial contention raised by Mr. Ayyangar, that the who appeared the High Court misdirected them learned Judges of in granting certiorari in selves both on facts and law, the present case is urged; that the · Tribunal in .Election Tribunal. It deCiding the matter in the way it did did 'not act either wit4out jurisdiction or· in ·excess of its authority, nor ;Was there . any error apparent on the face of the issuing of a writ to cee'dings which 'could, justify quash the same. · It is argued by the learned · counsel to quash the determination of the pro- . A.I 19541 T:c. Basappa' .. v~ T. Nagappa and Another. Muk/iedea J· S.C.R. SUPREME• COURTi REPORTS 255 ""( the matter in controversy between to describe as that, what the High Court · has chosen jurisdiction are· really not · matters which errors of the · Tribunal to enter or ad affect the competericy of judicate upon parties and the reasons assigned by the learned Judges in support of their decision proceed· upon a misreading and misconception of the findings of fact which Tribunal arrived at. Two points really · ai:ise for our consideration ,contentions appeal. ·The first is, on what grounds could the High in exercise of its powers under article 226. of 'the Court, Constitution, grant a writ of· . certiorari to quash the adjudication of the Election Tribunal ? The second is, whether such grounds did actually exist· in the present that point case and are the High Court's findings on proper ' appeal ? findings which should not be disturbed . upon raised ... J .. is ·well· known, The . principles upon. which the. superior Cqurts in England interfere by issuing writs of : certiorari are fairly well known and they have genera1ly formed the basis It is true that there of decisions in our Indian Courts. is lack of uniformity even in the pronouncements of English Judges, with regard to the grounds upon which Y- a wtit, or, as it is now said, an order of certiorari, could issue, but such differences of opinion are unavoidable in judge"made faw which has developed through a long the issue of the course cif years. As prerogative writs, within which· certiorari is include•i. had their origin in England in the King's prerogative power of superintendence over the due · observance of law by his officials and Tribunals. The writ of certiofari ;.... ) is so named because in its origina:1 · form it' required that the King should be "certified' of"·· the proceedings be' investigated' and the object ' was to secure by 'the authority of a superior Court, ·that · the jurisdiction . of inferiOr Tribunal should be· properly exercised(1) These principles were traiisplanted ,to other. parts · of the King's dominion:s; the British three chartered High · Courts · of Calcutta, days, to· issue Bombay · and Madras ·were· al6ne ·competent India, during' Ill (1) Vide Ryots ·of Garabandhov. Zemikd~rof Pdrlaldmeili, ·70 I.A;· r29 ~t page 140.

#1954. T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa 0:.nd Ano~her ~ MuJcherjea J.

#256. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] y ~ .i. .,, writs and that too within specified limits ·and the power was not exercisable by the other High Courts at all. "In that situation" as this Court observed in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao('), "the makers of the Constitution having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards fat the people in the new set up, which they called fundamental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick and in- rights expensive remedy for the enforcement of and, finding that the prerogative writs, which the Courts in England had developed and used whenever urgent necessity demanded immediate and decisive interposi- they con- tion, were peculiarly suited for the purpose, ferred, in the States' sphere, new and wide powers on the High . Courts of issuing directions, orders, or writs primarily for the enfor.cement of rights, such directions "for any other the power purpose" being also included with a view apparently to place all the High Courts in this country in some what the same position · as the Court of King's Bench i.n England." The fundamen; tal ...,. language used in articles 32 and 226 of our Constitution is very wide and the powers of the Supreme Court as well as of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing of ,orders, writs or directions .including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo war- ranto, prohibition and certiorari as may be considered necessary for enforcement of rights and in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes In view of the express provisions in our Consti- as well. tution we need not now look back to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English A law, nor feel oppressed by any difference or change of qpinion expressed in particular cases by English Judges. We can make an. order or issue a. writ in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases and· in appropriate manner, so to the broad and funda- that regulate the exercise of jurisdic- mental principles tion in the mauer of granting such writs iµ English law. lorig · as we keep fundamental ' -- 9 One of. the. fundamental principles in regard to the ~ . issuing of a writ of certiorari is, that the writ can be · (1) [1953] S.C.R. I144 at I150. Y • t- - Y- l... • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 257 the exercise of quasi-judicial availed of only to remove or. adjudicate on the validity judicial · acts. The expression "judicial acts" cludes functions administrative bodies or other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in con trast with what are purely ministerial acts. Atkin L. J. thus summed up the law on this point in Rex v. Electri city Commissioners(1) : I .. T. C. Basappa v. T.Nagappa and Another. Mtikherjea J. "Whenever any body or persons authority to determine questions affecting of subjects and having the duty in excess of their legal authority they are subject the controlling exer.cised in these writs." rights judicially act jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division having to act is exercised the control which The second essential feature of a writ of certiorari is through it over judicial or quasi-judicial Tribunals or bodies is not an appellate but supervisory capacity. In granting a writ of certiorari the superior Court does not exercise the powers of an appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination It demo of the inferior Tribunal purports to be based. to be without juris- lishes the order which it considers diction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior Tribunal. The offending order or proceeding so to say is put out of the way as one which should not be used to the detri ment of any person(2). The supervision of the superior Court exercised through writs of certiorari goes on two points, as has been expressed by Lord Summer in King v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited(3). One is the area of inferior jurisdic- tion and the qualifications and conditions of its exer the observance of law in the course cise ; the other of its exercise. These two heads normally cover all the grounds on which a writ of certiorari could be demand ed. the enunciation of the principles; the difficulty really arises in applying the principles to the facts of a particular case. In fact there is little difficulty (1) [1924] I K.B. 171 at 205. (2) Vide Per Lord Cairns in Walshall's Overseers v. London and North ~ .Pl, · Western Railway Co. 4 A.C. 30, 39. (3) [1922] 2 A.C. 128, 156. 33 1954· T. C. Basil.pp. v. T.Nagappa and Another. Mukherjea ]: 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] Certiorari may .lie and is generally granted when jurisdic a Court has acted without or .in , excess . ·of its tion. The. want of from the jurisdiction may arise nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or· the suffer Court from certain disability . by reason of extraneous circum stances('). When the jurisdiction of the Court depends is well upon the existence of some collateral fact, that the Court ,cannot by a , wrong decision .. of settled the fact give it jurisdiction which it would not other wise possess('). legally constituted· or itself may not be the enquiry A Tribunal may be competent in making to enter upon an it may act in enquiry but flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or where no particular procedure is prescribed, it may· violate principles of natural justice. A writ of certiormri . may be available in such cases. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent . on it is based on the face of the proceedings, ,e.g., when clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. Iri other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. The essential features of the remedy by way of certiorari have been stated with remarkable brevity · and clearness by Morris L. J. in recent case of Rex v. North umberland Compensation Appellate Tribunal('). The Lord Justice says : in disguise. 'It is plain that certiorari will not issue as sthe • cloak It does ·not 1ie in order to of an appeal bring up an order or decision ·for re-hearing of the issue raised 'to correct law when revealed on the face of an order or error of decision or irregularity . or absence of or excess of juris diction when shown." in the proceedings. It exists In dealing with the powers of the High Court under ·Court . has express- article 226 of the Constitution' this ed itself in almost similar terins( 4 ) and .said : . · (1) Vide Hals bury, 2nd edition, Vol. IX, page 880. · · (2)"Vide "Banbury v. Fuller, g ExCh:. 111; R.v. In.corm Tax Sptcial P11r: : poses Commissioners, 21 Q.B.D. 313. (3) [1952] 1 K.B. 338 at 357. (4) Vide Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman· Ltd., [1952] S.C.R. 583 at . ' . • 594· _ .. ,- Al 1 T • .. • z954 T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another. Mukherjea ]. £.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 259 "Such writs as are referred to in article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordiriate Tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in exceils' of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not -so wide or large as to enable the High Court to .convert itself into a Court' of appeal and examine ·for itself the correctness. of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made." These passages indicate with sufficient fullness the general principles that govern the exercise of jurisdic tion in the matter of granting writs of certiorari under article 226 of the Constitution . We will now proceed to examine the judgment of the High Court and see whether the learned Judges were right in holding "that sufficient and proper grounds existed for the issue of certiorari in the present case • . The grounds upon which the High Court has granted the writ have been placed in the judgment itself under three heads. The first head points out in what matters the Election Tribunal acted without jurisdiction. It is said, in this connection, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation for the presentation of the election petition and it had no authority also to allow the petitioner's prayer for · amendment and to hear and dispose of the case on the basis of the amended petition. The second head relates to acts in excess of jurisdiction. The Tribunal, it is said, acted in excess' of jurisdiction in so far as it went into and decided questions not definitely pleaded and put in issue, and not only did it set aside the election of respondent No. I but declared the petitioner to have been duly elected, although there was no definite finding and no proper materials for arriving at 1954 :T. c. Basappa v. T. Nagappti and Another. Mukhi1jtii J. 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955) a finding, that the petitioner could secure more votes than respondent No. 1 but for the corrupt practices of' the latter. record: These The third head purports to deal with errors apparent on · the face of the apparent errors, according to the High Court, vitiated three of the material findings upon which. the Tribunal based its relate to the commencement_ decision. These of polling at one of the polling booths much later respondent No. l's obtaining the scheduled to £urt1f er his services of a Government servant prospects of election and also . to his lodging. la false return of expenses. We will take up these points for consideration one after another. findings time, the basis: of first in extending the period of limitatiOn the election petition and secondly As regards absence of jurisdiction the High i Court jurisdic that the Tribunal acted without for amendmenj: and the amended taken by the High Court seems to the People Act the delay, if an elec the period prescribed it competent to allow an amend is presented, except further and better particulars section is of opinion tion, presentation of allowing the _petitioner's prayer dealing with the case on petition. The view be that under the Reprdentation of (hereinafter called "the Act"), no power is given the Election Tribunal to condone tion petition is presented after rules, nor is ment of the petition after it the matter of supplying of the illegal and corrupt practices set out in the annexed to the petition, as contemplated by 83(3) of the Act. Assuming, that the proposi learned Judges are tions of that they at all arise for con correct, we do not think facts of the present case. As sideration on the actual the election ·petition, as regards the first matter, stated above, was despatched by the petitioner by registered post to the 11th of April, 1952, · and it reached the Commission on the . 14th of April that 14th the date when the election petition of Aptil was following. · . We may take it therefore the Election Commission on though not admitting, law enunciated by i .. , I I •!

#1954. T. C. Basappa v. T.Nagappa and Another. Mukherjea J. y -. i S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 261 the declaration made in respect to the Elec could be deemed to have been presented tion Commission under section 81(2) (b) of the Act. Under rule 119 of the Election Rules framed under Act, an election petition against a returned candidate the publication of is to be presented at any time after the name of such candidate under section 67 of the later than 14 days the date of Act, but not the notice in the official gazette under publication of rule 113, that the return of election expenses of thereof candidate and It 1s have been lodged with the· Returning Officer. that this notice of the return of election not disputed in the Mysore Gazette on the expenses was published therefore was 31st of March, 1952, and just in time as it was presented within and not than 14 days from that date. The High Court seems to think date of publication us to be . an unwarrantable view take which 1s opposed to the ordinary canons of construction. Dr. Tek respondent No. 1 plainly Chand appeanng for this view and we confessed his must hold therefore Tribunal's entertaining prescribed period in the present case. that in computing the period of 14 days is to be included. This seems there 1s no question of the election petition after inability to support the petition elaborate Coming now the pleadings, and to the question of amendment, dis.cussion of High Court, after an various ·provisions of the Act, came to the conclusion that the Election Tribunal which is a special Court endowed with special jurisdiction has no general power of allowing amendment of the express provision of section 83(3) of the Act, which to allow amendments with the Tribunal empowers respect to certain specified matters, impliedly excludes the power of allowing general amendment as is con templated by Order VI, rule 17, of the Civil Procedure the discussion embarked. upon by Code. Here agam to us to be unnecessary and the High Court seems for by the uncalled for. The only amendment applied petitioner was a modification in the prayer clause by insertion of an alternative prayer to the original prayer the petition. No change whatsoever was sought to rg_5+' T. c. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another; MukherjeaJ.· 26i SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] ·in · introduced in the ··-actual' averments' in the pettt10n the original prayer . which .. was kept. intact was the application ' for amendment. The repeated alternative prayer introduced by the ·amendment was not eventually allowed. 'by the Tribunal · which granted the- prayer of the petitioner as it originally stood. In these circumstances the Tribunal the mere granted application. for amendment immaterial and; has absolutely no becomes altogether in . the case. We are bearing on the actual decision unable to hold therefore the Tribunal acted with respect · to either · · of · these · two matters. the . petitioner's jurisdiction the High Court; jurisdictio~ . in entering The High Court has held that the Tribimai' acted Ill excess of ,its into certain questions which · are not covered by the pleadi11gs of the parties and not specifically put iri issue. The other act in excess of its authority committed by .Tribu nal, according is that it declared to be a duly elected · candidate, on a the petitioner mere speculation although it did · riot find and had no 'could secure , more materials respondent No. l. . Qn the fiist point votes ·than the learned Judges have referred only to the allegation of corrupt practice made by 'the' appellant, regarding the hiring and procuring by the respondent Nb. 1 of a motor bus belonging transporting to Ahmed Jan for to the polling · booth~. The· issue framed on his voters this point is issue No. 5 which is wbrded as follows : · to find that the' petitioner "Did the first respond~nt hire ~nd procure a )notor bus which was a service. bus. rurming betwee·n ·Tarikere and Hiriyur, belonging to one; .Ali~~d' Jan, a·s al, leged list o~ r".articulars and thereby in paragraph 1. of commit the corr~pt practicer~ferr~d io in it '?" .. . The .Tribunal. found that· the. hiring of the bus . by respondent . No. 1 was,. not.· proyed, . bu~ it .was proved first respondent did procure ~e servicec bus of that . the Ahmed Jan, .wh9 ,was. acring a~. his .agent,· for conveying 'IOters, , . Th,e ·Tribuna.l . ..further. ,found., that .. e,v~n if Ahmed Jan. ·Was npt . an _agept. qf the. first respon_dent; as he, , was .. actually , .carryffi.g .. the .:voters . of. the l~tt~r i .. 1954 T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another. Mukherjea J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 263 to Sollapur in a bus, which bore froin Gowrapur respondent's election symbol, with his knowledge .first the ·first respondent must be held guilty and connivance, the corrupt practice in question. The High Court 'says that as it was nowhere alleged in the petition that Ahmed Jan was an agent of respondent No. I or he was carrying the voters with his connivance, the Tribunal must be held to have acted in excess of its jurisdiction in going into matters which were not defi that this view of the nitely pleaded. We do not think High Court can be supported. In paragraph 8 of the petition the appellant definitely stated that respondent by himself and through his agent commit ted major corrupt practices, one of which was hiring or procuring of Ahmed Jan's motor bus. The Tribunal found, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the motor bus was procured by the first respondent and his conduct in this respect, as disclosed by the evidence, showed that his . voters were being carried by Ahmed Jan with his knowledge and .connivance. in para It may be pointed out the petitioner clearly stated graph 9 of that the corrupt practices were committed by respond ent No. 1, or his agents, or by several persons with his knowledge and connivance. The finding of the Tri this point is a finding of fact based bunal arrived at on on evidence adduced by the parties and it is not in any way outside the pleadings or inconsistent therewith . the petition to be The other ground put forward by the High Court that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the appellant the duly elected candidate, although it had no materials to come to the conclusion that he could have secured more votes than respondent No. I but for the to us corrupt practices committed by the latter, seems to be without substance. learned . Judges did not properly advert to. the findings arrived at on this point by the Election Tribunal. The peti it may be noted, got only 34 votes less than the tioner, respondent No. 1. The Tribunal has found that the bus of Ahmed Jan, which was procured by respondent No. 1, 'did carry to the polling booths about 60 voters two trips and in the circumstances of the· case it could It appears ..,_ • f ). 1954 T. C. BasaPfta v. T.Nagappa and Another. • Mukhei}ea 'j, 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] legitimately presumed that the majority of did vote for respondent No. 1. If the votes of at least 40 or 50 of these persons be left out of account as be ing procured by corrupt practice of the first respond the latter's majority by 34 votes would be com ent, the petitioner would gain an pletely wiped out and undisputed majority. ment the Tribunal states as follows : In paragraph 33 of the 14th "Hence on issue we hold that the peti tioner would have obtained a majority of votes had it not been for the aforesaid corrupt practices on the part of the first respondent." Thus the finding is there and there is evidence in support of it. Whether it is right or wrong 1s another matter and it may be that the view taken by the dis senting member of the Tribunal was the more proper ; but it cannot be said that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing with this matter. We now come to what the High Court has described the face of the record. These as errors apparent on errors, according to the High Court, appear in respect of three of the Tribunal. the finding arrived at by The first of these findings relates to the time when the polling at Booth No. 1 at Ajjampur commenced on the date of election. The Tribunal has held that the fixed by notification was 8 A.M. in the morning but the polling did not commence till 25 minutes after that and the result was that a number of voters went away. It is said that some of these voters would in all proba bility have voted for the appellant and as there was a difference of only 34 votes between him and the res pondent No. 1 the results of the election have been materially affected by this· irregularity or violation of the election rules. There was evidence undoubtedly to show the polling did that some of the voters went away as · not commence at the · scheduled time ; · but the exact number of these persons is not known and there could not be any positive evidence to show as to how many If the Tribunal had on the basis- of these facts alone declared to be ' the appellant the duly elected candidate -holding them would have voted for the appeJlant. • -- 1954 T. C. Basappa v • . T. Nagappa and An at her. · Mukherjea J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 265 declared Tribunal the appellant into consideration the specific finding than respond that he could have secured more votes ent No. 1, obviously this would have been an error apparent on the face of the record, as such conclusion would rest merely on a surmise and nothing else. The Tribunal however discussed this matter only in connec tion with the question as to whether the violation of any statutory rule or order in the holding of election did materially affect the result of the election which the election of would entitle the Tribunal to declare to be void under section 100(2) the returned candidate competent to ( c) of the Act. This, the Tribunal was do under the provisions of the Act and in doing so the circumstances and could take probabilities of the case. But as we have stated already, to be duly that, but for the cor elected upon the matter of rupt practice of respondent No. 1 in procuring the service bus of Ahmed Jan, the appellant would have got majority of the votes. We cannot say is an error apparent on the face of the record which would entitle interfere by the High Court to writ of certiorari. As regards two findings, one relates to the from Paramesshwarappa, who receiving of assistance is a Patel, by in furtherance of his prospects of election. The High Court does not dispute facts alleged by the appellant that Paramesshwa rappa accompanied respondent and actually canvassed at several places and that he openly canvas the polling day. The lear sed at one polling booth on ned Judges say that even facts are believed, they only establish that Paramesshwarappa canvassed the petitioner but that would not amount to res taking assistance from him. This does pondent No. l's not seem to us to be a proper view to take. There was allegation by the appellant of the respondent No. l's taking assistance from a Government servant within In proof of the meaning of section 123(8) of the Act. the allegation evidence was given of the facts men tioned above. facts, which were found the Tribunal drew the conclusion that there to be true, from a Government had been an assistance respondent No. 1, If from these the other -- 1954 T. C. Bgsappa v. T. Nagappa and Another. . Mukhedea J. • SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] servant which would come within . the purview of sec tion 123(8) of the Act, impossible to say that this it is is an error apparent on the face of the record. The remaining finding relates the allegation of return the election into account the sanctioned include several regards the first the hiring charges they had been taken in his return of expenses; the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 in his of election expenses omitted and if limit .. expenses would have exceeded the respondent No. 1 The Tribunal has held omitted to include, the petrol in respect of some cars and charges, vans hired by him and also the dinner expenses red in the hotels. The High Court has observed that item the finding of the Tribunal is based on no evidence and rests on mere speculation. We do not think that we can accept this view as cor that he had used two rect. The first respondent stated cars which were his own and incurred petrol expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,083-3-0. The Tribunal has found in paragraph 29 of its order on the basis of both docu mentary and oral evidence that the re·spondent No. 1 had used six other cars and had purchased petrol for them for the purpose of his election campaign. The Tribunal first respondent must have spent not less held that this account which was than the sum of Rs. 1,250 on not included list of expenses. We are unable to say that this finding rests on no evidence. in the that as As regards in fact found respondent which is the omission to include hiring charges the High Court has observed that the Tribunal did not record any finding that such hiring was ·proved. The Tribunal has regards some cars they were hired, while other' had been taken on loan, the money value for their use having been paid by the that· to pay the hiring charges. The matter has been he had dealt with in paragraph 29( d) of the Tribunal's order and the entire evidence has been gone through. We are unable to say that the finding of . the Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 had omitted to include in_ his return the dinner and hotel charges is a of election expenses· 'evidence. Reference may finding unsupported by any to paragraph 29(f) of the be made this connection tantamount to saying S.C.R. S,UPREME COURT REPQRT~ Tribunal's order which deals with the matter in deiaH. On the whole our opinion , is that the so-called appar ent errors pointed out by the High Court are neither ' errors of law nor do they appear on the face of the record. 'An appellate Court might have on a review of this evidence come to a different conclusion but these are not matters which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari.. In our opinion the judgment of the High Court cannot be supported and this appeal must be allowed. The writ issued by the High Court will there fore be vacated. We make no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed. 1954 T., C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another. .-). . . . DURGA SHANKAR MEHTA v. THAKUR RAGHURAJ SINGH AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 1954 May 19. ._ .,.,- Constitution of India, articles 136, 173, 329-Supreme Court -Power to grant special leave to appeal-Decision of Election Tri bunal-Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951), ss. 36, 100(1) (c) and (2) (c), 105-Non-compliance with the provisions of void-Whether under s. 100(1) (c) or s. 100(2) (c) of the Act-Non-compliance with the provisions of Constitution in s. 100(2) (c)-Scope of. 17 3-C onstitutional disability-Election , article ... )- • Article 136 of the Constitution is worded in the widest terms possible. It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special leave against any kind of judgment or order made by a Court or ~ Tribunal in any cause or matter and the powers can be exercised in spite of the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Consti tution or other laws. The powers given by the· article are, however, in the nature of special or residuary powers which are exercisable outside th.e purview of ordinary law, in cases where the needs of justice demand interference by the Supreme Court. The non obstante clause in article 329 of the Constitution which debars the Supreme Court as well as any other Court in India from entertaining a suit or a proceeding calling in question tion 105 of the Representation of. the l'eopk Act which. gives fina lity to the decision of the Election· ·Tribunal so far as that Act is to Parliament or the State Legislature and ~ . any election 18-86 S.C, India/59