Bhikaji Keshao Joshi & Anr. v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani & Ors.

special leave against the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal, Akola, Madhya Pradesh, dated the 1st May, the election petition filed by the ap 1953, dismissing pellants. for the Akola the State Assembly of Madhya Pra Constituency of desh which was held on the 13th December, 1951, and the result of which was notified the Gazette on the two appellants are the electors 4th April, 1952. The first respondent was the election. Respondents the successful candidate at three candidates who, Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were to the polls but having been validly nominated went election petition under section 80 of (hereinafter People Act, 1951 the election referred on various allegations. 19th April, 1952, before the Election Commission at the pres Delhi and was admittedly one day beyond time. The Election Comµllssion admitted the cribed petition after condoning the proviso to section 85 of the Act and thereupon constituted a the petition at Akofa by Tribunal for notifications dated July, 1952, and 22nd September, 1952. respondent No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement on the 6th October, 1952, and the 16th October, 1952. With reference to thereto on the opinion that these pleadings, it was advisable issues the same before entering on the and to dispose of (Act XLIII of 1951) for setting aside to frame certain preliminary Th~ petition was filed on the Representation of the Tribunal was of the 30th In due the delay under to as the Act) the petitioners the trial of course 1955 Bhikaji Kuhao Joshi and 1J11Dthlr Brijlal Nanti/al B!1ani and ot"4r1 "' Jagannall1uldas J. 2S C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 431 the petition (3) Whether for presentation of framed. These nine of certain parties as (2) Whether there was the petition was defective trial of the case on its merits. Accordingly, nine pre issues sub liminary issues were stantially cover (1) Whether the following questions: the election petition was presented by a properly sufficient authorised person. the petition one day out of time. non-joinder ( 4) is defective for want of proper Whether the petition was defective verification. for vagueness of the cor in Schedule A thereto. The rupt practices set out the first of the above points in Tribunal found only favour of the petitioners by a majority. But pect of the other four points, petitioners unanimously. As a result of the adverse findings on the petition was dis without any trial on the merits. It is against missed this dismissal that the appellants have now come up to this Court on obtaining special leave. it held against these four points, the particulars (5) Whether respondents. relating the appeal, the merits of Before dealing with to the 1st respondent offering that at an early stage of these may be mentioned the Tribunal, an objection was proceedings before taken to the composition of the Tribunal on the al that one of the Members, Shri A. S. Athalye legation thereof on account was not competent to be a Member the first respondent. of his alleged bias favour of The bias was sought to be made out by showing that the election, Shri Athalye had written shortly before a letter to assist him in taken, his election campaign. On objection being for a preliminary decision Tri'.mnal stayed its hands the petitioners proceedings the High Court for the quashing of the constitution of the Tribunal on the above ground by the Con means of an application under article 226 of stitution. That hearing both sides. Thereupon the petitioners moved the order of this Court for special leave against to grant leave. High Court. But attempted counsel Learned this Court declined the appellants that question. Meanwhile, application was dismissed 1955 B/Jlkqji Ktshao ]oslil and """'"" Brijlal Nondlal Bi.Jani and others ... 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] the decision of to be reopened. On the 1st the question the previous proceedings, we declined the Tribunal the validity of attack the same ground. But this now under appeal on having been already determined against tioners the other side, allow the matter the .learned Attorney-General for respondent :ls to reopen before us attempted whether the Election the petition was presented Commission by an authorised person, which as stated above, was found against him by a majority of the Tribunal. The ground on which he attempted to re open this question was the finding was based on as to the burden of proof. We were not a wrong view this finding of fact to be prepared, .. however, reopened • in irrespective the burden of proof was the question whether rightly laid on the petitioners. therefore, that have been argued before us are whether the view taken by the Tribunal with reference ( 1) limitation, (2) joinder of parties, (3) verification, and ( 4) specification of particulars of corrupt practices is correct, and Schedule A attached if so, whether the same entailed dismissal of the peti tion. The questions may be taken up one after the other. to permit this appeal on special following questions, viz. The only points, to the petition, leave, is said the . same. the reasons for the 28th April, 1952, LIMITATION: As stated above, "3. The applicants were under the petition was -filed on the 19th April, 1952, admittedly one day be time. On the petitioners also an application for condonation of delay setting out In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 th~reof the circumstances under which to have occurred were set out as follows: Notice under Rule 113 of the Rules framed under the above Act was published on 5th April, 1952, in the official Gazette of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They their petition was duly presented within 14 days as prescribed by Rule 119. Applicants, however, the Notice under Rule in the Official Gazette of 4th April, 113 was published there was a delay of It 1952. therefore appears that actually the belief therefore 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 433 one day in This delay occurred under stances:- the representation of the election p~tition. circum following present their election

4. The applicants prepared the said the 17th April, 1952. They sent tion on petition with Shri P. B. Gole, Senior Advocate, Akola, with a written authority petition through any person of his choice at Nagpur on the 18th April. They also sent with Shri Gole Rs. 1,000 for being deposited the Government Treasury at Nagpur as required by section 117 of the Act and to obtain Treasury receipt for security of costs to be filed the petition. The applicants were under that an officer must have been appointed by the belief Election Commission under section 81 of the Act to whom election petitions could be represented for the State of Madhya Pradesh at Nagpur. Accordingly Shri Gole left Akola for Nagpur by the 1 Down Nag pur Mail, reaching Nagpur at about 9-30 A. M. on 18th April, 1952. obtained to receive for costs to be made

5. Mr. Gole caused the · deposit of Rs. 1,000 the Government security through Mr. Sidhaye, Advocate, Treasury at Nagpur the necessary Government Nagpur, the 18th April, 1952. He then receipt on Treasury the officer who may have been made enquiries about appointed the election petitions. He con sulted R. S. Rangole, who was attached to the Elec tion Office at Nagpur. On enquiries Shri Gole learnt that there was none at Nagpur, who was authorised the Act. Under to receive election petition under in the these circumstances Shri Gole booked a seat Night Plane for Delhi and flew to Delhi on the 18th there on the morning on 19th April, 1952. and reached On 19th April Shri Gole caused to be pre sented to the Secretary the Eelection Commission". thus furnished was accepted by the The explanation Election Commission as appears from the intimatibn the petitioners by letter dated the 30th July, 1952. The Tribunal was of that notwithstand the opinion the Election Commission condoning the order of it was free to the delay and admitting the petition, the petition 1955 Bhikoji X11/i11a ]Ol/ii Olld Ollal/rn v. Brijlal N andlal Bi;,oni and al/wrs I 1955 Bhikaji XtJhao Joshi and anollur v. Brijlal N andlal B!Jiani and others Jagannadhada, ]. 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955} In the Act. as barred the sufficiency of the condonation of to be dismissed the merits of reconsider the question by virtue of the powers vested in it under section 90( 4) of this view it into the merits of the explanation furnished and to the conclusion that the petitioners were negli the delay, even of one day, could not gent and the petition be condoned. It accordingly held by time. Now, was liable apart from the cause for delay, the question as to whether, notwithstand the delay by the Election Commission, it was open to a Tribunal to reconsider the matter by virtue of section 90( 4) of the Act, is the decision of this Court reported in now covered ·by therein heid that Dinabandhtt v. fadttmoni('). it was not open to reconsider matter in such a case. The conclusion of the Tribu this point cannot be maintained. nal, The to above was the legal point and required further obiter as regards to permit consideration. But we were not prepared that question reopened. We were also not adequate reason for the satisfied Tribunal the delay of one day Election Commission condoning to it. This explanation has not been found, even by to be false. to be there was any interfere wiih learned Attorney-General attempted the decision of this Court referred It was the Tribunal the explanation the Tribunal, therefore, on the view taken by furnished JOINDER OF PARTIES: The objection as to· joinder of parties arises as follows. Three persons by name Shri Sohom, Shri Kulkarni, and Shri Kothkar were nominated as candidates at the election. Their nominations were found to be in order on scmtiny by the Returning Officer. But within the time allowed,. the elections under section the Act. The petitioners, while they impleaded three unsuccessfuI respondents the polls, did not implead candidates who went the Tribu that these were also necessary parties and nal was liable for three persons. The view their non-joinder rendered ·withdrew the petition 37 taken by (1) [1955] l S. C.R. 140. 1955 Bhilcaji Keshao Joshi and anvtMr' v. Brijlal Nandlal BiJani and olhzrs Jagannadhadas ].

2.S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 435 the view respondents in spite of to fall within the election". this contention In support of "A petitioner shall dismissal. ·~elied upon section 82 of their view, the Act which join as the Tribunal is as follows: to his petition all the candidates who were duly nominated than himself if he was so nomi at the election other nated". It has been argued before us that this view is errone their nominations and ous and that persons who filed the prescribed who '}'ithdrew from the contest within their nominations having been found to be in order on scrutiny by the Returning Officer,. the category of "candi cannot be said In support dates duly nominated at two decisions Sitaram v. Yograj sing(1) and Shea Kumar v. V. G. Oak(2) have been cited. On the other side the case in Mohammad Umair v. Ram Charan Singh(3) was brought to our notice taken by the Tribunal. These in support of the decision of the ques three decisions have tion as depending on a construction of the phrase "at the Act. The Bombay the election" in section 82 of this phrase confines and Allahabad cases hold to those who the necessary parties under the Patna were candidates for the actual poll, while High -Court takes It appears election" has no such limiting significance. to us to be unnecessary and academic thi~ the decision of judicial ·controversy having If we this Court in /agan Nath v. Jaswant Singh('). this controversy, we would to settle were called upon prefer to base not on any meticulous the election" but on a construction of the phrase "at provi· comprehensive consideration thereunder sions of the Act and of the rules framed if any, of the requirement under and of section 82 as to the joinder of parties other returned candidate. this, since in /agan. Nath v. /as want Singh( ) that even if any of the necessary par ties other than the returned candidate has not been ·we are, however, relieved this section it has been decided the phrase "at the purpose, the relevant to go into the view decision treated regard (1) A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 293. (3) A.I.R. 1954 Patna 225. (2) A.I.R. 1953 All. 633. (4) [1954] S.C.R. 892. 1955 Bhikaji K1sltao :Jo,hi and anol/ur v. B.jjlal N andlal B!Yat1i and ot/wrs 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] is not liable the petition impleaded, in limine on that sole ground but to be stage with reference view of this ruling this point also cannot be maintained. to be dismissed that it is a matter the appropriate to the final result of the case. In the Tribunal on the decision of into consideration at VERIFICATION: The view taken by the Tribunal the Act is based on section 83(1) of this question which is as follows : "An election petition shall contain a concise the petitioner statement of the material facts on which relies and shall be signed the petitioner and veri fied in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Pro cedure, 1908, The relevant provision in referred to herein is Order VI, rule 15, clauses (3), which are as follows : the Civil Procedure Code (2) and for the verification of pleadings". I "(2) The person verifying shall specify, the numbered paragraphs of erence to the . pleading, what he verifies of his. own knowledge and what he and believed to be verifies upon true. information received it was signed". the date on which and (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state place at which In the present case well as are each signed by both the petitioners and now no dispute about it. The verification clause the petition is as follows : the verification of the petition as of corrupt practices there is the schedule of particulars "The above-named applicants hereby affirm the contents of the above petition are true to informa the press reports and several other tion received from electors and believed by them to be true. Signed and verified at Akola on ". The verification clause corrupt practices relating . to in Schedule A is as follows : the particulars of "The above-named applicants contents received and believed by us to be true. this schedule are aflirm Signed and verified at Akola on information " 1955 Bhilcaji Kesllao Joshi and anothn v. Brijlal Nandlal BiYani and otMrs jagaMadhadas J. :'\ 2 S.C.R. · SUPREME COURT REPORTS 437 the view it is contended is unsustainable. the various allegations that a verified pleading in the petition nor in to any numbered It is pointed out that In the view of the Tribunal two defects there were to any verifications. They do not numbered paragraphs nor do they bear the dates on In which they were signed. the view of the Tribunal the petition was liable to dismissal for non-compliance this behalf. ·~ the specific provision in the Act Th~t the verification neither schedule of particulars bears any date is not disputed. by the But Tribunal in so far as it was of the opinion verifications do not graphs the verification were clearly meant to statements the petition convey and schedule were, their entirety, based on It is urged, formation and belief. therefore, there was no scope and hence no need to specify which were based knowledge and which upon on personal It is to information. We agree with this contention. be noticed an affidavit which, by virtue of Order XIX, rule 3, specifically required to ' be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove (except on interlocutory applications, on which his belief may be admitted, provided that ments of the grounds is not there cannot be-any it became neces such limitation for pleadings. Hence to demarcate the two. The allegations clearly between in the peti in this case purport to be based only on informa tion. Since the verification clauses to the entirety of the petition and the attached schedule, absence of enumeration therein as having on information cannot be con to be a defect. The verifications are accord sidered ingly defective only as regards thereof. The question the petition this ground. Though there to dismissal on may be cases where the pleading and the the date of verification may be relevant and it would important, be a wrong exercise of discretionary power to dismi~ the requirement of is whether thereof are stated. But there the verification of a pleading the various paragraphs the nature of is different things liable 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 1955 .iBhikaji Keshao Joshi and another v. Brij/a/ Nandlal ,Bi)ani and others JagaMadhadas ]. an application on of verification. normally be called upon adding date of the earlier omission. the sole ground of absence of date the applicants should the lacuna by remove indicating a supplementary verification reason the original verification and In such a ease PARTICULARS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES: ''The the Act The is based on section 83(2) of shall be accompanied by a objection is as follows : pet1t10n like manner setting forth full signed and verified particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice which full a statement as including as petitioner alleges, possible as the parties alleged the names of have committed such corrupt or illegal practice and ·the date and place of the commission of each such practice". the instances The objection the petition are all of furnished them vague and not in compliance with .the above provision. The in Schedule A to the particulars of is that list of particulars is as follows: SCHEDULE "A". instances referred List of particulars of accompanying petition.

1. That for votes to listen to the recitation of in the month of December, 1951, the premises of Akola the Local Sikh Community the holy the 7th day of the death of this meet for himself the Sikh in general and for himself at the ensuing election. Respondent the meaning of pondent No. 1 has been Shree Gurudwara, where had assembled book 'Granth Saheb' on daughter of one Sardar Suratsingh. At ing respondent No. 1 canvassed and paid Rs. 201/-, apparently as donation Gurudwara, but really as gift for inducing Community the Sikhs assembled No. 1 was guilty of bribery within that term People Act. Similar in section 123 of the Representation of in the Akola Constituency instances of giving for securing votes of respective groups arc- (a) Donation to Hariharpeth Akhada ; illegal gratifications in particular to induce 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 439 (b) Payment to Panch-bungalow Committee 1955 •• Bhikaji KeJhao Joshi and another Brijlal Nandlal Biyani and ot!rtrl Jagannadhadas J. Bhangis of Old City. ( c) Donation to Bhaji Bazar Association. ( d) Distrib~tion of blankets money to voters. they were threatened

2. At the instance of respondent No. 1 a meet ing of workers in Berar Oil Industries-a concern of Birla, was called by its manager on the eve of the respon dection and their service or suffer dent No. 1 on pain of losing they did not vote for respon pecuniary dent No. 1. The poster of the rival candidate affixed ,on the post-office within the Berar Oil Industries was removed and stolen away. the premises of to vote for in case loss,

3. Respondent No. 1 caused groups and sections such as Bohara, Lohars, of castes and communities, Marwaries, Muslims, Rajasthanies, Bhangies, to for voting appeals stating the voters by threats, ,etc., to vote for respondent No. 1 and openly canvas sing on communal and caste lines and using undue influence. 4. respondent No. 1, coercing that resolutions were passed handbills without pamphlets Issuing names of printer or publisher. folded several folded bundles amounting

5. At the time of counting votes in Polling Sta tion No. 53, -about 20 in number, of ballot papers were found in the ballot box of respondent No. 1, when it was opened for counting votes. This was noted by the Returning three or more than Officer. Each bundle consisted to gether. Obviously each three ballot papers, these. ballot papers were put in the the bundl.! of ballot box by one person, as the ballot papers put the ballot voters could not auto matically to voters the ballot box. The ballot papers themselves, but were not put illegally brought back by the voters and handed over to persons working for and on behalf or respon dent No. 1 on payment of illegal gratification. These ballot papers together box by different themselves collected were bundled into a compact bundle in the box by the voters issued ,56 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955J 1955 Bhikaji Keshao Joshi and another v. Brijlal Nartdlal Biyani and olhtrs the ballot box by persons working for and and put in on behalf of respondent No. 1 by taking illegal grati This was done· on 31st December, 1951, at fications. Chandur by persons with respon dent No. 1. the connivance of

6. False personation of several dead voters and taken place, in Ward in Pakistan has voters absent No. 12 and 15. a vote to place loud speakers false propaganda was

7. The respondent No. 1 resorted to false propa ganda. His man announced on that rival candidate Dr. Joglekar was the murderer of M. of the caste and party of Godse, for him was a vote for Gandhi's Gandhi Murderer. Another that Dr. Joglekar was Mishra's man, supported by Mishra's Lectures money. in public including respondent No. 1 have freely made meetings, statements against Dr. Joglekar, prejudiced Joglekar's election. Personal character and conduct of Dr. Joglekar was thus prejudicing his prospects also falsely attacked, of election. false defamatory and malicious the prospects of Dr. rival candidate and respondent No. 1

8. Voters were carried in hired carts at many polling stations, particularly at Kapshi Polling Sta tion. This was arranged by persons working for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 at his expense and con nivance. A written objection for police enquiry was given at Kapshi and one in Rifle Range area.

9. Respondent No. 1 spent transgressing lacs of rupees over his election limit of Rs. 6,000. He has given a totally untrue .return of elec tion expenses. This is in contravention of law. the prescribed Substitutes

10. Mohota Mills released workers and paid for canvassing work for respondent No. 1 on polling day. these workers were en gaged by the mills and they were also paid. This was done at .the instance of respondent No. l". There can be no doubt that almost all herein-above set out are extremely vague and sufficient particulars. the instances for the appel- Learned counsel 1955 B'""4ji K11hoo ]Olm atuJ _,,,,.. .,.. Brijlal N aMlal I Bi1oni ottd olhm J«gotinodhadu J. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 441 in terms to amend the schedule by they were entitled to a trial to the rest. He further urged lants invited our attention to the fact that the Tribu the question of vagueness dealt nal, while considering only with the instances of corrupt practices specified in paragraphs l(a), l(b), l(c), l(d), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 others. He accordingly contended that, by and not to hold implication, the Tribunal was not prepared in paragraphs 1, 3, 9 and 10 that items mentioned were vague. He urged that at least these four items taken not to be vague and that there is no must be the petitioners should not have been called reason why furnishing better particulars as that, at respect of rate, items of corrupt practices. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the appellants that the items set out in paragraphs 3, 9 and 10 are not vague. There is no specification therein of the requisite details requires. Section 83(2) re which the Act reasonably be considered quires not only what may to the nature of each "full particulars" having allegation, but enjoins following (1) Names of the particulars should also be given. to have committed parties alleged the corrupt or (2) The date of the commission of illegal practice. each such corrupt or illegal practice. (3) The place of commission of each such corrupt or illegal practice. There can be no reasonable doubt require ment of "full particulars" has got to be is one fullness and clarifica complied with, with sufficient to meet them and to turn the the Tribunal into a rambling and rov enquiry before list in the items Schedule A we are satisfied in paragraph 1 of item except that which No. 1 can be said to comply with the requirements of section 83(2). this view of -the contents of Sche In learned counsel for the dule A, the contention of the appellants is that even so the Tribunal should have called upon better parti culars as regards all the other items, by virtue of the it under section 83(3), and in the powers conferred on 10-83 S.C. lndia/59 inquisition. On a careful scrutiny of the so as to enable the opposite-party that they must be such as not that none of the petitioners regard is set out furnish fairly 1955 Bhikaji Kesh4o ]Dlhi and another v, Brijlal }fandlal Biyani and olher1 Jagannadhadas J. 442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] the 1st the petitioners respondent has least called upon the objection it should have at the allegation alternative, in paragraph 1 in item to substantiate No. 1, which was sufficiently specific and which, made out, might have resulted in the election being set aside. On the question whether or not the Tribunal should have called upon to amend the schedule by furnishing better particulars, the learned Attorney-General invited our attention the written statement as regards the, particulars the Tribunal as appears written statement of respondent-: paragraph 9 is as follows : "9. (a) It the vagueness of to the various orders made by tion ought to be dismissed as it does not contain concise statement of material facts on which the peti the list of particulars given in tioners rely. Similarly the schedule or in the petition are not in compliance with section 83(2). the order-sheet of the 1st further, submitted the, .case. In is, in Schedule relate the generality of (b) Without prejt.dice it is further submitted objection, that para V of peti the parti tion read with para VI ( e) will show to corrupt and illegal culars given practices alleged respon dent No. 1 and by his agents and persons working on behalf of respondent No. 1 with his connivance. Such in law. The applicants are bound particulars are bad the persons who are alleged to to state have actually committed tice. to have been committed by the corrupt or illegal the names of the coercion was the petition allege ( c) Paras 1 and 2 of was no free election reason of general bribery and undue influence exercised by and on behalf of respondent No. 1. Similarly the allegation in para 2 the result of manipulation by is that or at the instance of allegations must be supported by giving the necessary the names, date and place of particulars commission of corrupt or illegal practice alleged. The allegations in paras 1 and 2 of the petition are allega tior.s of corrupt and illegal practice within the mean- respondent No. 1. Thus regarding 1955 BJ.ikaji Kesh.a Joshi aN/ anollllr v. Brijlal Nandltd Bi1atti and olhert Jagannadhadas ]. 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 443 the Act, and are ing of sections 123, 124 and 125 of not allegations of a general charactj:r which do not implicate the candidate personally. ( d) Further by way of example, para 1 of the the alleged practices are the · allegations the case with schedule, no names, date of given. paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 . Same to satisfy ( e) It is for the petitioners the Elec tion Commission and the Tribunal that the particulars given are according to law. This has not been done and the petition, therefore, ought to be dismissed on this ground". Now Tribunal discloses order dated the 16th October, 1952, the Tribunal decided that the case was in the first instance to be taken up for deci sion on the preliminary issues. Having so decided it passed the following order: order-sheet of the proceedings before the following. By The respondents "We call upon the parties whether they want to add by way of amendment to the pleadings on facts as in some of the already made, which they have the question of fact is involved. preliminary points to add to their pleadings on facts in respect of the above preliminary application issues. under Order VI, 16, Civil Procedure Code for striking out spmc i}ortion in paras 3-b and para 4-(d) (2) of the written statement of the respondent No. 1". On. the Tribunal passed the following order: The petitioners have made the 17th January, 1953, not want "The respondent No. 1. prays justice amendment and his written-statement and to ask for particulars. the interests of application for filed five days before thereof given shall be hearing". On the 27th January, 1953, the order is for time to amend In is granted .... The for particulars to be the date of hearing and copies petitioners replies on the date of ready with the petitioners. The "The petitioners have amendment application of the respondent No. 1. The 1955 ll/rikqji Kn/tao ]DJ/ri """ -v. Brjjlol NllllllW Bi1alli and olhns Jllplrl1ltldWas ]. ·+14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 latter has amended his application, was no objecion". to· which a the order to amend On the 29th January, 1953, "The petitioners do not want irresponsible by permitting that the is considerable force learned Attorney-General in view of the amendment of the written pleadings statement". In view of the specific objection taken in the written statement and the opportunities which the petitioners had for amending the petition which the above orders the contention disclose, there of the pet1ttoners, for some reasons best known to themselves, have come forward petition somewhat and that while the Court has undoubtedly the power amendment of the schedule of corrupt to permit practices furnishing of better particulars as regards the items therein specified, there was no duty cast upon the Tribunal to direct suo motu the furnishi.ng of the better particulars. It is true that the petitioners in the reply that they filed to the written statement of the respondent answer ·to the particulars as to the the objection alleged corrupt practices were vague, said as follows : to give further are prepared if the Tribunal is pleased to permit under the People particulars section 83(3) Act". This reply was filed on the 16th October, 1952, which is the very date on which the first of the above orders It is also extracted 1953, the respondent No. I at one stage, indi cated an intention .. · himself. to ask for particulars. But responsibility ':i a matter of/this kind the primary ·full particulars of the alleged corrupt for furnishing practices full compliance with section 83(2) of the Act was on the petitioners. While undoubtedly the Tribunal has, in our opinion, too narrow a view of their function in deal ·taken all the petition ; ng with the various alleged defects and in petitioners as sufficient for dismissal, their duty the order-sheet was passed. and to file a petition the Representation of the 17th January, "The petitioners the order dated treating 1st absolved J55 ' B/tikqji Ka!IM Joshi and anolhlr v. 11'ijlal N and14l Bipi and OIMn Jagannadhadas J. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' 445 the Act and to remove comply, of of section 83(2) of when opportunity was available. They cannot shelter behind the fact that neither the respondent No. 1 has, in to furnish better particulars. their own accord, with the requirements the defects the Tribunal nor terms, called upon inasmuch as The position, therefore, on the question of com the requirements of section 83 pliance or otherwise of the petition of the Act is that (1) the verifications and schedule are defective the dates thereof are not specified, and (2) the schedule of parti culars consists of a number of items of which only one at best could have been taken up for inquiry by the Tribunal. But all the rest were not only extremely vague but no amendment was applied for nor was an opportunity for amendment of pleadings in general, two occasions, availed of. Learned counsel open on this may be, for the appellants urges the Tribunal dismissing there Was no justification for the petition in to have it was bound toto and called upon to substantiate the petitioners if need be, allegation by evidence after striking out, the rest of the particulars, under the powers vested in it under Order VI, rule 16, Civil Procedure Code. learned Attorney-General for On the other hand in such a situation the respondent No. 1 urges it was open to consider whether, total effect, taking there was require if, in exercise · ments of section 83. He contends the Tribunal the petition as a whole and in its substantial compliance with that however _ of its judgment, its discretion in favour of it thought ·that there was substantial non-compliance, notwithstanding that one out of the various items may have been specific, it was not bound the petitioners to exercise by ordering a striking out of the various items and to direct to one single in order. The learned this would be Attorney-General urgues really the petitioners a different petition making out for the Election Com from what they brought up before mission and that the Tribunal to exercise great strictness had the right and the duty the trial of item which may be in this class of case$ to be confined the petition "-- 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1955] v. 1 .1955 in order that the machinery for setting aside elections might not be abused for the purpose of maligning the Bhikajf Keshao Joshi and another successful candidate _by levelling vague and irrespon- sible. charges against him. _ \Vhile there is consider- . Bdjlal Nandlal able force in this argument,. we think ·that in a case Biyani and others of this kind the Tribunal when dealing with the -;;: d J matter .in the early stages should riot have dismissed aganna a as • th'e application~ It should have exerCised its powers and called for better particulars. On non-compliance therewith, it should have ordered a striking out of such of the.'charges which remained vague and called upon the petitioners ·to substantiate the allegations in respect-of those which were reasoncibly specific. \Ve are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the .tribunal in dismissing the petition outright was clearly erroneous. : Notwithstanding this opinionwe -\vould, in the normal course,. not have felt called upon to interfere fo this case under article 136 after this lapse of time arid at the instance of persons like the appellants before us who are mere voters having no direct personal interest in the result of the election.· But there is one other circumstance .in· this case which we.have noticed and which we feel 'we ought not to overlook, though in the course of, the argu ments the same was riot brought to our notice. Para~ graphs 6(a), (b) and (c) _of the application for setting aside the election sets out certain_ grounds of alleged disqualification of the returned candidate to stand for the election. · It is also stated therein that objections in this _behalf were taken at the. time of scrutiny of the nomination papers bufthat they were summarily ,ov:erruled by the Returning Officer. without any enquiry and that accordingly the objections to the · ._. _ disqualification have been raised in the ,application. · - The objections are as follows: · are as follows:~ ... 6. The material facts in support of the grounds " · · (a) The .election of candidate for the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly in the single member Akola Constituency was announced to be held on31-12-1951. . . N:ominations were to be filed qn or before 15-11-1951; - . ' . . . . ' ' 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 447 to fill the material grounds were that this time of scrutiny objection was taken of nomination was due on 17-11-1951. and scrutiny At respondent No. 1 on several nomination paper of grounds but respon dent No. 1 was disqualified for being chosen as and for being a Member of Madhya Pradesh State Assembly under Chapter III, section 7 ( d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951). That the respondent No. 1 is disqualified the seat under the Act, because he is the Managing Agent or Manag ing Director of Rajasthan Printing and (Litho Works -private Indian Com panies Act. He has, as a share-holder and director, interest, tionery, paper and printing materials, etc., State Government of Madhya Pradesh. He has also interest of works or performance of services, such as printing; etc., under taken by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent No. 1 gets a share by way of com mission on sales the Limited Company He has, therefore, by himself interest in the contracts of the company with the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. for supply of goods, viz. company under the in contracts for the execution in contracts effected by limited (b) The respondent No. 1 is a partner in the firm entered the performance of cloth distri retailers the State Government to respondent in the said of services unpertaken Berar General Agency. The said into a contract for bution on behalf of and holds a same. The licence for the No. 1, therefore, has interest by himself contract bv the Government. for the performance firm has · advertisements ( c) The respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of the monthly Journal "Prawaha" and a by-weekly paper print Govern- These publications "Matru-bhumi" The respondent No. 1 has, for the performance of services under said contract taken by Pradesh. The income derived from these contracts by the in the private accounts of pondent No. 1 are noted the State Government Madhya therefore, contract interest basis. 1955 Bltikaji K.sliao Juhi and anotlrlr v. Brjjlal N and/al Biyani and ot/rlrs Jazannadhadas J. ... 1955 Bltiiqji K1Moo ... .]ol/ti """~ /hiflal NOIUll4l BIJOni and otlrlrs j111~j. 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] the respondent No. 1 and their details are shown the profit and income-tax return of the respondent No. 1 for the relevant year and current year. loss . statements filed with The sales and other details of the "Matru-bhumi" concern are noted in the private accounts of the pondent No. L These objections were summarily overruled by inquiry or any the Returning Officer, without any reason". These allegations, tails as may be necessary, might well and bring about the setting aside of to these allegations states as follows: if made out with such further de prove serious the election of returned candidate . The 1st respondent in answer "It is denied that there was any improper accept this it that the is substantially to the nomination paper of ance of respondent No. 1 and in particular it is denied that any of the allega tions made in paragraph 6(a), (b) & (c) of the peti tion constitute in law a disqualifications of section 7 of the Representation of the People Act. Without pre respondent is submitted judice No. 1 was not suffering from any of these disqualifi cations in fact on the date of the submission of the nomination paper". Having regard to the nature of the alleged disqualifi cation, which the effect that the in contracts with the returned candidate had interest Government at the relevant dates, it was very neces sary that the matters should have been cleared up It is not the enquiry before in the interest of purity of elections that such allega tions oi disqualification should be completely ignored without cnqufry and it appears rather surprising that the Tribunal should have ignored them and exercised its powcc to dismiss the petition. However reluctant ·we might be to interfere this after the lapse of three years and four months and with only an year and eight months before the general elections, we feel constrained to send this matter back for due aiquicy. But bc£«e doing so and in view of the delay that have already happened, and other circumstances th~ Election Tribunal. in a matter like 1955 Bhikaji Keshao Joshi and anolhu v. Brijlal N andlal Bi1ani and others Jagannadharlas ]. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 449 we, in exercise of the powers which the Tribunal in •he normal course might itself have exercised, direct the striking out of all the items of alleged corrupt practices the one set out in Schedule A excepting covered by paragraph 1 of item 1, i.e., as follows: "That in the month of December, 1951, respon dent No. 1 had been to the premises of Akola Shree Gurdwara, where the Local Sikh Community had as recitation of the holy book sembled to listen to the the death of 'Granth Saheb' on the 7th day of this meeting daughter of one Sardar Suratsingh. At respondent No. 1 canvassed for votes for himself and donation to the Guru paid Rs. 201, apparently as the Sikh Com dwara, but realy as gift for inducing munity in the Akola constituency in general and Sikhs assembled them to vote for himself at the ensuing election. Respondent No. 1 was guilty of bribery within the meaning of that term in section 123 of the People Act". therefore, go back for enquiry and trial The case will, with reference only the allegations in para to (1) tbe application for setting graphs 6(a), (b) and (c) of in para graph 1 of item 1, in Schedule A attached to the ap plication as set out above. the election, and (2) the allegations in particular to induce the Representation The Election Commissioner will now reconstitute an appropriate Tribunal for the purpose. The Tribu nal when constituted and before proceeding to trial will call upon the petitioners to rectify the lacuna as to dates in the verification clauses in the petition and the fresh pro the schedule. the Tribunal will be disposed of at a ceedings before is allowed as stated very early date. above but in the circumstances without costs. It is to be hoped The appeal