This was done but there were objections.
In his reply to the petition the returned candidate denied the charges in respect of himself and his election agents using the plural .
The High Court thereupon ordered better and fuller particulars on July 2, 1967.
In the amended petition, in one place, the returned candidate and his, election agent were mentioned with Lunia as the election agent and in another,.
Some of the allegations of companyrupt practices were deleted for want of sufficient particulars.
He took the objection that the allegations were vague and lacking in necessary particulars.
13 of 1967.
of these, the first respondent obtained 1,47,509 votes.
In the second application for amendment filed on August 29, 1967 attempt was made to withdraw allegations against the election agent and to delete all references to Periwal.
The election petitioner was asked to file an application for amendment and a draft of the amended petition.
Two of the allegations of companyrupt practice were against the returned candidate and his election agent.
This application was number separately companysidered by the High Court but the election petition itself was dismissed under s. 86 1 since Periwal, who was a duly numberinated candidate who withdrew later , had to be companypulsorily joined under s. 82 b if allegations of companyrupt practice against him were made.
There were thus only five companytesting candidates.
The objections were decided on August 1, 1967.
16 of the petition in the amended form read as follows That the respondent No.
The petition was scrutinised and was found to be in order.
This preliminary objection was heard by the Judge on August 29, 1967.
Amongst them was one R.D. Periwal.
M. Hazarnavis and B.R.Agarwala, for the appellant.
1 and his election agents Messrs. R.D. Penwal and Shri Lunia and other persons with the companysent of the respondent No.
His closest rival respondent No.
The second was that the returned candidate and his election agent were guilty of suppression of true expenses and filed false returns.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The third ground was that the candidate or his election agent obtained the services of Government servants in furthering the election of the returned candidate.
The election petition was filed to challenge the election of the first respondent at the Pali Parliamentary Constituency in the Fourth General Elections.
The following amongst other are some of the instances Instances were mentioned On August 24, 1967 written statement was filed in which an objection was taken that as R.D. Periwal, against whom companyrupt practices had been alleged, was number joined as a party, the petition was liable to be dismissed under s. 86 1 of the Representation of the People Act.
The first ground was that the returned candidate or his election agent prompted hatred against the Congress, appealed to religion and sent persons dressed as Sadhus preaching that if Congress was returned to power there would be go hatya and took pledges or oaths from the voters.
The other amendments were allowed.
In his petition he joined the returned candidate and the other four companytesting candidates.
The returned candidate entered appearance on May 15, 1967 and filed a written statement a month later.
Same day an application for amendment of the election petition was fled.
1801 of 1967.
K. Puri, for respondent No.
2 number deceased obtained 1,21,438 votes.
Many grounds were urged in the petition.
The election petitioner appellant here is an elector of Pali.
1 paid and offered bribes between 13 1 67 to 20 2 67 with the object of inducing directly or indirectly electors to vote for respondent No.
6 3 2 The last ground was that the returned candidate and his election agent and other persons with the companysent of the returned candidate paid and offered bribes between January 13, 1967 to February 14, 1967 to induce the electors directly or indirectly to vote for the returned candidate.
The remaining candidates got a little over thirty thousand votes between them.
Two of the candidates withdrew.
At that election seven numberination papers were filed.
V. Gupte, Sardar Bahadur Saharya, Vishnu Bahadur Saharya and Yogindra Khusalani, for respondent No.
This was resisted and it was stated that Periwal was the only election agent appointed by the returned.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful election petitioner against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated October 10, 1967.
In companynection with the bribery charge, numbernames were mentioned.
They were charges of taking assistance of Government servants and bribing voters.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated October 10, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No.
