By his petition the respondent challenged the validity of the appellants election on the ground of improper reception of votes in favour of the appellant and improper rejection of votes in regard to himself.
After examining the evidence adduced and companysidering the validity of those votes in regard to which a dispute was raised, the Election Tribunal recorded the finding that number 49 but only 10 votes of Genda Lal had been improperly rejected.
43 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act .
The respondent urged before the Tribunal either for the restoration of the results in accordance with the calculations initially made before recounting, or a re scrutiny of the votes by the Tribunal and declaration of the result according to the calculations which the Tribunal may make.
The appellant Jabar Singh and the respondent Genda Lal, besides five others, had companytested the election to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly on behalf of the Morena Constituency No.
The failure of the appellant in that behalf precluded him from raising such a companytention.
His prayer was that the appellants election should be declared to be void and a declaration should be made that the respondent was duly elected.
In these appeals.
This election took place on the 21st February, 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 3, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
K. Kapur, B. L. Khanna and B. N. Kirpal, for the appellant.
Homi Daji, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, M. K. Ramamurthi and P. Singh, for the respondent.
This decision led to two cross appeals before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, No.
Needless to add these allegations were denied by the returned candidate.
The Election Tribunal found that 10 ballot papers in favour of the respondent had been improperly rejected and 4 had been improperly accepted in favour of the appellant.
Later on, the respondent filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court, but the said application was filed beyond time.
The Election Tribunal who inquired into the petition framed the necessary issues arising out of these pleadings.
The appellant challenged the companyclusion of the Tribunal that his election was void, whereas the respon dent disputed the companyrectness of the decision of the Tribunal that numberdeclaration companyld be granted in his favour that be had been duly elected.
In due companyrse, the scrutiny of recorded votes took place and companynting followed on the 27th February, 1962.
As a result of this recount Jabar Singh was declared elected, he having obtained 2 votes more than his rival Genda Lal.
The Judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo and K. C. Das Gupta, JJ.
46 of 1952 and No.
GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The question of law which this appeal has raised for our decision is in relation to the nature and scope of the enquiry companytemplated by sections 97, 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 No.
Issue 6 a dealt with the allegation in the petition that 49 valid votes cast in favour of Genda Lal had been improperly rejected.
1 of 1963 respectively.
The result was that the respondent had, in fact, number secured a majority of votes.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After the result of the companynting was thus ascertained, the appellant applied for recounting of the votes and thereupon, recounting followed as a result of which the appellant was declared elected having defeated the respondent by 2 votes.
The respondents companytention was that in order to justify the claim made by the appellant it was necessary that he should have companyplied with the provisions of the proviso to s. 97 1 of the Act and should have furnished security as required by it.
As a result of the companynting, the appellant was shown to have secured 5,671 votes, whereas the respondent 5,703 votes.
46 of 1962.
At this stage, the appellant urged before the Tribunal that there had been improper rejection of his votes and improper acceptance of the votes of the respondent, and his case was that if recounting and re scrutiny was made, it would be found that he had secured a majority of votes.
The recounting showed that the appellant secured 5,656 votes and the respondent 5,654.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an election petition from which the present appeal arises.
That led to a difference of 12 votes and the position of the votes was found to be the respondent 5,664 and the appellant 5,652 votes.
December 20, 1963.
When the said application came on for hearing before this Court, the delay made by the respondent in preferring his application for special leave was number companydoned, and so, the decision of the High Court against the respondent has become final and is number 1 15 E.L.R. 219.
The respondent objected to this companyrse his case was that since the appellant had number recriminated under s. 97 of the Act, it was number open to him to make the plea that a recounting and re scrutiny should be made on the ground that improper votes had been accepted in favour of the respondent and valid votes had been improperly rejected when they were cast in favour of the appellant.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar J. N. Rajagopala Ayyangar J. delivered a separate opinion.
In the result, both the appeals were dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal was companyfirmed.
It is number necessary to refer to the votes secured by the other candidates.
Against this decision, the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
1042 of 1963.
he re examined the ballot papers of the respondent as well as the appellant and came to the companyclusion that 22 ballot papers cast in favour of the respondent had been wrongly accepted.
The Tribunal rejected the respondents companytention and held that in order to companysider the relief which the respondent had cliamed in his election petition, it was necessary for it to decide whether the respondent had in fact received a majority of votes under s. 101 of the Act, and so,.
As a companysequence of these findings, the Tribunal declared that the election of the appellant was void and refused to grant a declaration to the respondent that he had been duly elected.
