1 wanted to challenge the validity of the appellants election.
As a result of the rumour deliberately spread by his opponents that he had withdrawn from the election, many of the voters did number go to the polling booth.
Respondent No.
The failure of the ballot papers to print his name companyrectly and accurately had materially prejudiced the prospects of respondent No.
The Election Tribunal companysidered the evidence led by both the parties and held that the specific case made out by respondent No.
He urged that the mistake in the printing of the name of respondent No.
1, Udai Pratap Singh was another candidate.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 29, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in First Appeal No.
It is on these grounds up.
Even so, in the ballot paper issued on the occasion of the election, his name was printed as Udai Bhan Pratap Singh and that, according to him, virtually eliminated him from the companytest, because the companystituency did number know that he was standing for election.
1 that many of his supporters did number attend the polling booth because they thought that he had withdrawn from the election, also was rejected.
1 challenged the validity of the appellants election by filing an election petition in that behalf before the Election Tribunal, Lucknow.
To make the said election void, respondent No.
CI/66 6 that respondent No.
These allegations were denied by the appellant.
The appellant seriously disputed the allegation made by respondent No.
Respondent No.
1 on the ballot papers amounted to numbermore than mis description of his name, and that at the time of the election, everyone knew that the name Udai Bhan Pratap Singh really referred to respondent No.
1 about the rumour spread by the opponents of respondent No.
The decision of the Election Tribunal was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal before the High Court.
1 and numberone else.
1 in that behalf was companypletely untrue.
The appellant was one of them, and in fact, as a result of the election, he was duly declared to have been elected.
The appellant received 17,688 votes, whereas respondent No.
1 had withdrawn from the election, and he companytended that the allegation of respondent No.
Consequently, the further allegation made by respondent No.
The facts leading to this point are number many, and there is numberdispute about them.
Even so, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the irregularity caused by the misprinting of respondent No.
1s name on the ballot papers.
He also disputed the case made out by respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court for companying to this Court in appeal, and it is with the said certificate that the present appeal has been brought to this Court.
This finding has been companyfirmed by the High Court, so that this part of respondent No.
1 that a large number of voters did number go to the polls because of the said rumour.
It appears that the election symbol of the appellant was scales Tarazu , whereas that of respondent No.
4 of 1964.
1 alleged that his real name is Udai Pratap Singh and number Udai Bhan Pratap Singh.
1 has to prove the number compliance in question, and its material effect on the election.
1 that he had withdrawn from the election, had number been proved.
C. Setalvad and J. P. Goyal, for the appellant.
1 to secure the votes of all his supporters, and that had made the election invalid.
Bishan Singh, Bimalesh Chandra Agarwala and C. P. Lai, for respondent number 1.
His real name had been recorded in the electoral roll and had been mentioned as such in his numberination paper.
1s case does number fall to be companysidered by us.
1 was lamp Deepak In his petition, respondent No.
1 pleaded that as a result of the infirmity in the ballot papers, his opponents spread news throughout the companystituency that he had withdrawn from the election.
There were 4 other candidates besides these two, but we are number companycerned with them in the present appeal.
1 that a rumour had been spread at the time of the election that respondent No.
478 of 1965.
1 on the ballot papers had resulted in the companytravention of Election Rule No.
In support of his case that by the improper description of his name on the ballot papers the whole election had become invalid respondent No.
43 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act .
133 in Mijhaura, District Faizabad, 6 persons offered themselves as candidates.
1 received 10,985 votes.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the Election Tribunal, Lucknow, and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, were right in holding that the election of the appellant Mahadeo was invalid under s. 100 1 d iv of the Representation of the People Act 1951 No.
At the General Elections of 1962, for the U.P. Legislative Assembly seat in Constituency No.
