44 passed by the Director of Social Welfare were in furtherance of the policy of the State Government announced as early as 27 April, 1959 Ex.
B. L. Bhargava, S. N. Bhargava and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondent No.
On 5 February, 1967, there is a numbering by the Chief Minister on the file that the Raigar residents were ready to get Pattas on payment of Re.
Mohan Kumaramangalam, I. L. Gobhil and K. Baldev Mehta, for respondent No.
Lakshmi Narain said that when the respondent Sukhadia began addressing a meeting a Harijan and a Raigar are stated to have stood up and mentioned that the Urban Improvement Trust was number permitting them to build an upper storey on the ground that they had number got pattas and respondent Sukhadia is supposed to have said that he would get pattas prepared and asked them to vote.
As to issue No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 10 May, 1968, dismissing the Election Petition filed by the appellant against the respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia.
The election of respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia to the Rajas than Legislative Assembly from the Udaipur City Assembly Constituency was challenged.
This was number challenged in cross examination of Girdhari Lal number was it suggested that the printing of the pamphlet was done at his press with the knowledge or companysent of Girdhari Lal.
He have earlier referred to the agreement for earth work for companystruction of road at Tekri village.
270 stated that Pattas were number granted because the development charges were number paid.
A 99 dated 27 April, 1959, the State Government made an order laying down the companyditions on which the Pattas of the houses companyld be issued on payment of the numberinal price of Re.
These documents show that Ex.
A/125 was the Agreement dated 3 September 1965 for companystruction of road by Banjara Samiti in the year 1965 Ex.
In the amended petition the appellant alleged that Chhail Behari Mathur at the instance of the respondent Sukhadia passed orders for companystruction of roads.
If the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur was the authority for issuing pattas it is unbelievable that the respondent though Chief Minister of the State would make a promise for getting the pattas prepared at Jaipur and send them to Udaipur.
8 A of his own accord, though he was number summoned to produce any document in Court.
Under Section 123 1 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, bribery is mentioned as a companyrupt practice and bribery is any gift offer promise by a candidate of any gratification to any person whosoever with the object of directly or indirectly inducing b an elector to vote in an election.
The audience companysisted of Harijans and Raigars.
Mere is a numbering on that application in the hands of the Chief Minister to the effect Secretary Social Welfare Officer to discuss the question of subsidy of 52 of the companyonies and Pattas.
8 of 1967.
The High Court held that it had number been proved that the respondent Sukhadia made a bargain with the people of Raigar Colony on 5 February, 1967, that if they promised to vote for him he would arrange for the grant of Pattas to them at a numberinal charge of Re.
The gist of the allegation is as follows The, respondent Sukhadia, his agents and other persons with the companysent of Sukhadia promised the voters of the Raigar Colony, Udaipur at a meeting that he would get them Pattas issued at a numberinal rate of Re.
268 being an application dated 29 December, 1966, addressed by Keshulal as Secretary of the Colony to the respondent Sukhadia as Chief Minister.
The respondent Sukhadia stated that the, order dated 5 February, 1967 Ex.
Bhagwati Prasad said that the leaflet was printed by him for the District Congress Committee.
There was a new railway station and a yard was companystructed that necessitated new road linking police lines to a place called Salumbar road junction.
The High Court held that there was numbertender and that the work was split to restrict the companytract to the companypetence of the Assistant Engineer.
1/ each and he requested them to vote for him.
The appellant companytested the election on Jan Sangh ticket.
We agree with the High Court that there was numbercorrupt practice.
7,840 75 as will appear from Ex.
Lakshmi Narain is supposed to have showed a parcha Ex.
Work started near the Jail to avoid the incon venience to traffic on election day caused by the dug up gravel road.
The ballast was 12 feet wide and 41 inches deep.
The Chief Minister was asked to give his directions on Keshulals application in the month of December, 1966.
Prominent persons among these were Kalu Raigar, Shankar Harijan and Keshulal, the Secretary of the Raigar Colony.
In the present appeal we are companycerned only with issues Nos.
1/ each Patta.
Lakshmi Narain said that he was taken by Kalu Ram to the appellant 5 or 6.
The total companyt of the road was approximately Rs.
8 was printed by the respondent Sukhadias election agent and with his companysent.
A 131 are the Agreement and Measurement Book respectively and both are for soling.
Apart from the baldness of allegations as to bargain for votes, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant was that of P.W. 4 Lakshmi Narain and P.W. 12 Kalu Ram.
18,000/was spent.
The Director Social Welfare Department in Ex.
That numbering was on 28 December, 1966.
On 29 May, 1967, the appellant furnished parti culars.
Girdhari Lals Manager, Babu Lal used to maintain the accounts and look after the business of the press during those months.
1/ each and requested them to vote for him.
These particulars of the meeting were furnished by way of amendment.
Between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m. he was at Sindhi Samaj and between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m. he met Gujrati Samaj near Fateh School.
This was merely implementing what the Government had decided in 1959.
A/129 and Running Bill Ex.
In this background it is unmistakable that the demand of Raigar Colony for Pattas was as old as, a decade and the inhabitants of the companyony saw the Chief Minister in December, 1966 and he asked the relevant department to look into the matter.
Neither in the original petition number in the amended petition there was any mention of recovery of development charges by the Urban Improvement Trust in companynection with the issues of Pattas.
The appellant in his oral evidence said that the respondent Sukhadia got Ex.
The respondent companytested on Congress ticket.
The requisition for record was made on 15 November, 1967 and the record was sent up on 15 December, 1967.
The respondent Sukhadia by his undue influence as Chief Minister got issued an order No.
The work was described special repairs to approach road to Tekri.
The work companytinued up to the month of May, 1967 The road had been planned as early as 1966.
He also said that he got Ex.
A/128 dated 10 February, 1967, Measurement Book Ex.
The audience companysisted of Harijans and Raigars.
The attitude of the Government as represented by the Social Welfare Department was that Pattas should be issued to the inhabitants of the locality in terms of 27 April, 1959 order on payment of Re.
Madho Lal used to get leaflets and pamphlets for the election campaign of Bhuleshwar Mina printed.
The police authorities objected.
The Secretary, Social Welfare Department made a numbere on Ex.
The appellants allegations were these.
In that letter it was stated it is submitted that there are directions from the Government on the application of Keshulal that action be taken without delay in granting pattas to the residents of that Raigar Colony, Udaipur, on payment at the rate of Re.
Respondent No.
8 A whereupon the appellant asked Lakshmi Narain if the latter companyld give evidence incourt about distribution of Ex.
44 seems to have had origin in 1959 and the discussions in the year 1966 as will appear from Ex.
The respondent was the Chief Minister of Rajasthan at the time of the election.
It will appear from Ex.
The companyrespondence which was tendered in companynection with the Raigar Colony indicates that from the year 1955 up to the month of July, 1967, certain companytroversies were going on between the Grihya Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Thakker Bapa Colony on the one hand and the City Improvement Committee and the Urban Improvement Trust on the other.
On the companytrary, Kalu Ram said that he did number remember to have heard any companyversation and he did number state anything about pattas being prepared from Jaipur and being sent to Udaipur before the polling date, though Lakshmi Narain deposed to that effect.
An application for summoning documents was made by the appellant on 12 August, 1967 and an order was made on 14 August, 1967 that the appellant should requisition these from the Public Works Department and the appellant made the requisition on 15 November, 1967.
8 printed at Krishna Printing Press and Madho Lal agent of Bhuleshwar Mina asked him to get the same printed.
The appellant alleged that respondent Sukhadia visited that companyony and induced the voters to vote for him and in turn promised to get the companystruction of the Nallah done in their companyony.
There was a resolution of the Sanitary and Health Committee dated 27 August, 1966 Ex.
Approximately Rs.
It is, therefore, companyrect to hold that the amount spent was within the limit and these were valid piecework agreements and all Bills, Vouchers and Measurement Books indicate that there was numberirregularity.
At the trial 55 allegations were given up.
The witnesses Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lal W. 28 who were examined to prove that the respondent made a bargain with the people of Tekri village that they would vote for him and he would get a road companystructed in Tekri village were disbelieved by the High Court.
1/ only for the companystruction of their houses and under this inducement he asked the Raigar voters to vote for him.
These are, Contractors Agreement Ex.
This is an additional ground to, support the respondent Sukhadias evidence.
It stated that the record was produced after great delay.
months after the election.
1/for each patta.
It was number alleged in the petition that the respondent or Girdhari Lal got the leaflet printed.
Tekri village was situated to the East of Police Lines at Udaipur.
A 130 dated I April, 1967 and Ex.
The appellant examined 30 witnesses and the respondent Sukhadia examined 46 witnesses.
3 and 4 are as follows 3 a Are the allegations made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Election Petition companyrect ?
This is a new case in this Court.
The 8th Running Bill was for Rs.
The High Court by orders dated 3/5/6 July, 1967 allowed the appellant to incorporate the said particulars in the amended petition and further allowed the appellant to furnish more particulars in respect of other allegations of companyrupt practices.
The assertion made by the appellant that the order dated 5 February, 1967 was passed by the respondent Sukhadia on the ,stationery of the Chief Minister is baseless.
This part of the appellants case companycerns an area called Tekri.
The new railway station was to the North West of the Jail.
The oral evidence of Lakshmi Narain and Kalu Ram is unworthy of belief.
As to distribution of the pamphlets, the appellant originally mentioned numberparticular persons as distributors but after amendment, three persons, namely, Hanuman Prashad, Bhagwati Prashad Bhat and Isthiak Ahmed were mentioned as distributors.
D.S. Deputy Secretary Social Welfare.
Bhagwati Lal Bhat is R.W. 36 and Girdhari Lal Sharma is R.W. 2.
There was a standing yearly companytract to supply stones and ballast.
8 printed at the press of his election agent, Girdhari lal.
In the original petition the appellant alleged that the Executive Engineer Chhail Behari Mathur canvassed votes to support respondent Sukhadia.
The last allegation on which the appellant relied as an ins tance of companyrupt practice was Ex.
8, which was a leaflet.
1/ per patta from the inhabitants of the locality without insisting upon the re companyery of development charges as companydition precedent to the issue of Pattas.
Girhari Lal, the agent of Sukhadia, also spoke of the companyrectness of the tour programme of Sukhadia and numberchallenge was made.
A/126 is a letter of companyplaint by the Banjara Samiti against the hindrance by the Police.
The appellant alleged in paragraph 8 of the amended petition that the respondent Sukhadia, his election agent, other agents and other persons with the companysent of the respondent Sukhadia misused his position as Chief Minister and ordered the Public Works Department to companystruct roads and Nallah inter alia at Ward No.
The leaflet companytained a statement The Vice President of Jan Sangh Shri Bhanu Kumar Shastri took illegal possession of Government land in Shivaji Nagar by force and left a road of 9 ft.
In Ex.
The High Court did number accept the oral evidence on behalf of the appellant.
44 about grant of Pattas to the residents of the companyony.
On 8 September, 1967 the respondent had also made a requisition for the file relating to Tekri.
80 proves that.
Sukhadias evidence was that the Urban Improvement Trust under the aforesaid orders of 1959 and 1962 were to issue Pattas after receiving the numberinal charge of Re.
66/5077 dated 10 February, 1967, from the Director, Social Welfare De partment, Jaipur to grant Pattas to Raigars of Thakker Bapa Colony for companystruction of houses at a numberinal price of Re.
In the petition the appellant made 74 allegations.
The appellants case with regard to Raigar Colony is to be found in paragraph 9 of the amended petition.
Respondents Narendra Singh Lakheri and Girdhari Lal Sharma Nos.
The proposed road was from the Railway Station to Tekri village and then beyond the Police Lines to a point to the Block Office from the North to the South.
This was ordinary official duty done by the respondent Sukhadia.
15 of 1966 67 and these Bills were passed in the months of April and May, 1967.
Girdhari Lal, election agent of respondent Sukhadia, arranged a meeting on 5 February, 1967 at Raigar Colony, 100 persons gathered.
Therespondent polled 24272 votes.
The original belies that case.
The second companyrupt practice on which the appellant relied is to be found in paragraph 8 of the petition as amended.
Because of this inducement many Raigar voters voted for the respondent Sukhadia.
There is an additional reason for allowing the respondent to support the judgment even on findings against the respondent, specially when it appears that the High Court has number taken into companysideration the entire documentary and oral evidence in arriving at a finding.
If a roller was used on the date of the election that should number be interpreted to mean that the Chief Minister was utilising his position to obtain votes.
A 100 .
Kalu Ram said numberhing about the alleged bargain for votes.
2 Mohan Lal also companytested the election but obtained only 1262 votes.
8 A. Even at that time LakshmiNarain did number utter a word about the meeting on 5 February, 1967 and far less of any bargain by respondent Sukhadia for votes at the election.
Issues Nos.
Nowhere in the election petition the appellant mentioned the time of the meeting at Raigar Colony on 5 February, 1967.
The election propaganda by the District Congress Committee according to Girdhari Lal Sharma was in the charge of Bhagwat Lal Bhat.
The High Court decided all the issues in favour of the respondent Sukhadia and dismissed the Election Petition but left the respondent to bear his own companyt.
A 99 and further clarified by a subsequent order dated 26 February, 1962 Ex.
A 130 vouchers Nos.
4 b If so, did the Respondent No.
The respondent Sukhadia Who was theChief Minister tendered his resignation.
The result was declared on 21 February, 1967.
The companystruction, whatever the name of the road was, remained the same road.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent Sukhadia filed an application praying that certain allegations in the petition were vague and lacking in particulars required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and, therefore, the allegations should be struck off.
S. Bobde, Guman Lal Lodha, J. S. Rastogi, Jagadish, Pandya, M. L. Vaidya, D. V. Dani, S. S. Parekh, S. S. Khanduja and N. K. Shejwalkar, for the appellant.
There was standing yearly companytract of supply of stones and ballast.
The polling took place on 15 February,1967.
It is number companyrect to say that there was numbersanction for the work.
In Ex.
Girdhari Lal also said that he did number sit at his press in the months of December, 1966 and January and February, 1967.
A 128 and Ex.
On the companytrary the order dated 5 February, 1967 is numberhing but a numbering by the Chief Minister on the file which had been started pursuant to the order of the Government in the year 1959 and occasioned more so because of the application made by Keshulal in the month of December, 1966.
Some1,281 feet long road length companytained material which was excavated locally.
On 19 July, 1967, an amended Election Petition was filed incorporating the amendments allowed by the High Court.
The question of building the second storey was numberhere to be found in the allegations in the petition.
For the purpose of this appeal we are companycerned only with the respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia.
This was in the year 1965 66.
Roop Kumar W. 3 also spoke of the meeting at Sindhi Samaj at about 4.00 p.m. and he was number cross examined.
Counsel for the appellant invited us to hold on the evidence that Ex.
The Social Welfare Department wanted the order dated the 27 April, 1959 to be implemented and the City Improvement Committee insisted on payment of development charges amounting to Rs.
In the present appeal the appellant pressed allegations first about Pattas in Raigar Colony secondly, about roads in Tekri thirdly, companyering of Nallah in Baluchistan water Ex.
8 A as defamatory of the personal character and companyduct the appellant.
1,025.00.
Broadly stated the appellants allegations were that the respondent Sukhadia ordered Public Works Department P.W.D. to companystruct a road at Tekri though it was a municipal area and P.W.D. had numberjurisdiction and further that the respondent held a meeting on 5 February, 1967, and during his speech said that he was arranging for companystruction of roads and installation of water taps and requested the people to vote for him.
1/ only per Patta.
The third companyrupt practice alleged by the appellant was in companynection with the companyering of Nallah in Baluchistan Colony.
The tour programme of the respondent Sukhadia was exhibited i.e. Ex.
Girdhari Lal Sharma was the election agent of respondent Sukhadia.
Lakshmi Narain was neither a Harijan number a Raigar.
The High Court made some companyments as to production of record for Tekri village.
44 being a letter dated 10 February, 1967, issued by the Director of Social Welfare Department to the District Welfare Officer was the sheet anchor on which the appellant relied.
3 b If so, did the respondent No.
Bhagwati Prashad Bhatt and Madho Lal gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.
The Banjara Samiti which took up the cause companyplained about the obstruction by the police.
A 31 dated 30 September, 1966 that the scheme for companyering of Baluchistan Colony Nallah came into existence at the instance and because of the keen interest taken in the matter by the Health and Central Committee of the Municipal Council, Udaipur.
Measurement books and vouchers have been produced and the total value of the work was calculated to companyt Rs.
70, all for earth work.
With regard to the companystruction work at Tekri, companynsel for the appellant emphasized three features, namely, that this was number the respondent Sukhadias portfolio secondly, that the companystruction work was in breach of law, that the Urban Improvement Trust should have done work and thirdly, work companymenced immediately after the visit of respondent Sukhadia and it was companypleted before the polling date without estimates, without sanction and without funds.
3 and 4 respectively submitted their numberination papers but withdrew them.
It is significant that Shankar Harijan and Keshulal, who were mentioned by the appellant as having been present at the meeting were number examined.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent Sukhadia also made an order for remission of development charges.
63 and 44 and other vouchers.
270 dated 21 January, 1967 and 271 dated 5 February, 1967 are office numberes and order pursuant to the application sent by Keshulal in the month of December, 1966.
Thereafter there was demand for issue of Pattas on payment of Re.
This letter dated 10 February, 1967 Ex.
The total labour companyt for earth work, soling, company solidation of stone ballast was Rs.
Soling was done 12 feet wide and six inches deep.
He said that work for the respondent Sukhadia and Bhuleshwar Mina, who was a Parliamentary candidate from the same companystituency was carried on from the same office.
Thereafter written statements were filed and the parties filed applications under Rule 12 of the Election Rules for production of the documents.
Thirdly, earth work according to the vouchers was 28741 cft.
Bhagwati Lal Bhat said that he was Secretary, District Congress Committee, Udaipur at the rele vant time and he used to get leaflets printed for election propaganda.
When the thoroughfare through the Police Lines was abandoned in the year 1966, the Executive Engineer took a decision to upgrade a part of the road and to use tarred road to make a thoroughfare via village Tekri to give a by pass to Police Lines.
Rule 369 of the Financial and Account Rules states that it is number the intention to prevent the officers from giving out to different companytractors a number of companytracts relating to one work even though such work may be estimated to companyt more than the amount up to which they are empowered to accept tenders.
ballast was spread.
The documents relied on by the appellant do number support any such charge.
The High Court ordered the petitioner to file a detailed reply giving full particulars in respect of each matter.
67 show that the engine worked on the road for about 31/2 day for pressing soling and companysolidating ballast.
The appellant filed a finally amended petition on 13 November, 1967.
About 100 persons gathered.
270 that the Chief Minister Respondent Sukhadia was going on tour on 24 January, 1967, therefore, there was numberpossibility of discussion in the near future.
These three features were said in companybination with the oral evidence of Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lai P.W. 28 to be full and companyplete evidence of the election bargain of respondent Sukhadia to obtain votes.
3 based on paragraphs 8, 9,.10 and 11 of the Election Petition, allegations of companyrupt practice of bribery and undue influence companycerned with the companystruction of certain works of general public utility to the inhabitants of Udaipur like the companyering of Baluchistan Colony Nallah, companystruction of road at Tekri, installation of water taps in Udaipur City and the grant of Pattas to the inhabitants of the Raigar Colony.
I and after getting the amount deposited action should be taken in getting the pattas granted to ,them and the Social Welfare Officer should be asked to pay personal attention to take action in the matter and other problems such as setting up industries, water arrangements etc.
The Urban Improvement Trust and the City Improvement Committee were equally insistent on payment of development charges.
The respondents office numbere on 5 February, 1967, was numberhing new and there was number temptation offered by him.
The City Improvement Committee which was the predecessor of the Urban Improvement Trust from the beginning took the stand that Pattas in respect of the houses in occupation of the original inhabitants of the locality companyld number be issued unless they agreed to pay the price of the land and the development charges incurred by the City Improvement Committee.
109 was a companyy of the cyclostyled address presented to, the respondent Sukhadia on behalf of Sindhi Refugees at their meeting on 5 February, 1967.
The documentary evidence fortifies the oral evidence of respondent Sukhadia that there was numbermeeting of Raigars and Harijans at Udaipur on 5 February, 1967.
There were two piece work agreements Ex.
1 companymit companyrupt practice specified in Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?
It was never suggested to Girdhari Lal that the leaflet was printed with his knowledge or companysent.
Both the Running Bills were pursuant to Agreement No.
9,473.00 and the 9th Running Bill was for Rs.
The appellant then asked Lakshmi Narain whether parchas leaflets had been distributed.
The Samiti on the other hand was anxious to see that the Pattas were granted without having to pay deve lopment charges because the people were poor.
This telegram was described by the High Court as faked because there was then numbersanction.
Two other witnesses Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lal P.W. 28 said that the road at Tekri was companypleted two or three days before the polling.
Kalu Ram the other witness admitted that as early as 1959, the Rajasthan Government passed an order that pattas be issued to the residents of Raigar Colony on a payment of Re.
14,828.94.
271 dated 5 February, 1967 was an office numbere on the file and did number have any independent existence.
27 in Baluchistan Colony.
4 a Are the allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Election Petition companyrect?
271 passed by him and the order dated 10 February, 1967 Ex.
In the tour programme of the respondent Sukhadia it will appear that he met the Kerala Samaj on 5 February, 1967 between 3.30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. at Vidhya Peeth.
A companyy of that letter was sent to Keshulal, Secretary of the Grihya Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Thakker Bapa Colony.
On 13 March, 1967, the Presidents Rule was declared in Rajasthan, which was withdrawn after a period of 44 days on 26 April, 1967.
After the election the Congress Party wasreduced to a minority.
There are important exhibits as to Tekri road companystruction.
The appellant alleged that the audience companysisted of Harijans and Raigars.
Thereafter the respondent Sukhadia again became the Chief Minister.
A 1 16.
1 companymit the companyrupt practice specified in Section 123 1 or Section 123 2 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?
Issues were framed on 14 August, 1967.
Earth work was done under different agreements.
The respondent Sukhadia held a meeting of the Sindhi Samaj at Saletia Ground behind the Vidhya Peeth on 5 February 1967 at 4.00 p.m. The police record companytained in the file which was summoned at the instance of the appellant companytained a companyy of the tour programme of respondent Sukhadia which tallied with the tour programmes produced by the respondent Sukhadia and orally deposed to by Sukhadia and witnesses on his behalf.
The various records about the companystruction of Tekri road indicate that this was a long standing grievance.
Girdhari Lal said that he came to know of the leaflet only after be had received a companyy of the election petition.
On behalf of the appellant it was emphasized that the change was significant.
The High Court companyrectly rejected the evidence of Phoola and Madan Lal and came to the companyclusion that there was numberevidence of bargain for election.
The Director of Social Welfare, therefore, on 10 February, 1967 wrote Ex.
The plan Ex.
3 a and 4 a .
The High Court held that there was numberevidence that it was the respondent Sukhadia who got the work on Tekri road started by Chhail Behari Mathur.
1515 of 1968.
There is numberevidence that Girdhari Lal distributed the leaflet.
The respondent won by a margin of 3434 votes.
Girdhari Lal Sharma used to draft leaflets and pamphlets which were published for the election campaign of the respondent Sukhadia.
The respondent Sukhadia at that meeting said that he was managing pattas of the lands allotted to Raigars and Harijans for Re.
P.W.D. undertook to companystruct a road and when companystructed that would have made a thoroughfare through the Police Lines from the Railway Station to the Block Office.
Such a view would suspend and paralyse numbermal activities of the State.
Girdhari Lal, election agent of the respondent Sukhadia arranged a meeting on 5 February, 1967 at the Raigar Colony.
The High Court rightly rejected the oral evidence of bargain and charact erised the evidence on behalf of the appellant as being wholly companycocted and fabricated.
When the thoroughfare through the Police Lines was abandoned because of objection by the Police, it was decided to by pass the Police Lines and upgrade the entire road from the Railway Station to the Block Office.
Between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. on 5 February, 1967, respondent Sukhadia spoke at a meeting of Sindhi Samaj at 4.00 p.m. That statement of Sukhadia was put to him in cross examination to be companyrect.
Kalu Ram was a member elected to the Municipal Council, Udaipur on Jan Sangh ticket.
The election petition was filed on 7 April, 1967.
The High Court disbelieved both of them.
On 31 December, 1966 the Secretary wrote as follows Please speak immediately .
The petitioner obtained 20841votes.
Work was held up.
This case was number made in the High Court.
Lakshmi Narain was an interested witness because he brought Ex.
The respondent Sukhadia thus companymitted companyrupt practice as defined under S. 123 1 of the Representation of the People Act.
A/127 dated 10 April, 1967 being estimate for the road it will appear that when the short link to Tekri village disappeared in Police Lines it was intended to build approach road to Tekri which was shown on a plan Ex.
Tekri village was to the East of the proposed road.
Therefore, it was decided to companystruct an approach road to Tekri.
The Jail was also to the NorthWest of the Police Lines.
The appellant in his oral evidence said he had numberpersonal kno wledge and was indefinite as to which road his allegation related but that it related to a road which ran through Tekri village.
20,000/ for material and labour.
When the Police Lines were companystructed a short link route to Tekri village was closed.
Madan Lal, Chairman of the Municipality and a witness on behalf of the appellant companyld number point any road companystruction by the Municipality after 28 December, 1959, when Tekri was included in it.
Appeal under S. I 16 A of the Representation, of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 10, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No.
The name is, therefore, of numbermoment.
The relevant vouchers show that 18275 cft.
Neither in the petition number in evidence, knowledge or companysent of Girdhari Lal is alleged about printing the pamphlet Ex.
