By this amendment the power to try an Election Petition was entrusted to the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether a Letters Patent appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat from an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge of that High Court in the companyrse of the trial of an election petition filed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act or number.
Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice shall, from time to time, assign one or more Judges for that purpose.
1 to 6 were the candidates.
Thereupon the 1st respondent filed an election petition in Election Petition No.
Shanti Bhushan, P.M. Raval, M.V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Appellant.
In order to establish his case, the Ist respondent applied to the learned Single Judge who was trying the election petition to direct the Returning Officer to produce all the records of election and particularly the used ballot papers and companynterfoils of used ballot papers, the unused ballot papers, the marked companyies of electoral rolls and the authorisations of the polling agents of different candidates in respect of 13 villages and 14 polling booths mentioned in the application.
The Ist respondent prayed for permission to inspect the ballot papers, the marked companyies of voters lists and certain other materials referred to above.
I.R. 1986 Madhya Pradesh 165, overruled.
At that election the appellant having secured the largest number of votes was declared as elected to the Legislative Assembly.
As soon as may be after an election petition has been presented to the High Court, it shall be referred to the Judge or one of the Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of election petitions under sub section 2 of section 80A. 1053 Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to companyclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial.
Shamsudeen v. B. Thirumalai Kumar, ILR 1970 2 Mad.
Siaram v. Nathuram and Ors.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the basis of the pleadings a number of issues were framed.
The appellant objected to the grant of the prayers made by the Ist respondent.
660 of 1988.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the Ist respondent preferred an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.
3 of 1987 which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.
1047 At the election held on March 5, 1985 to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Gujarat from the Lunavada Legislative Assembly Constituency the appellant and respondent Nos.
Instead of an Election Tribunal companysisting of three persons as it was originally provided, under section 86 of the Act which was substituted in the place of the original section 86 of the Act, it was provided that if an election petition was number dismissed under section 85 of the Act by the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall companystitute a Tribunal for trying the election petition by appointing a District Judge from a list of persons who were District Judges in the State and were in the opinion of the High Court fit to be appointed as members of the Election Tribunal.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
After taking into companysideration the evidence that had been adduced before him and hearing the arguments of the learned companynsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge declined to grant the application made by the Ist respondent by his Order dated July 18/21, 1986.
In the companyrse of the election petition, the first respondent had made inter alia the following allegations that bogus votes had been cast in favour of the appellant in the names of dead persons that votes had been cast in the names of voters who were physically far away from the companystituency and had number companye for voting on the date of polling and that votes had been cast in the names of voters who were out of the companyntry on the day of polling.
A new chapter entitled Chapter IV A companysisting of sections 116 A and 116 D was introduced into Part VI of the Act providing for an appeal from any order of the Election Tribunal made under section 98 or section 99 of the Act to the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal was situated.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1987 of the Gujarat High Court in Election Petn.
L.J. 576 and Ramdhan v. Bhanwarlal, A.I.R. 1985 Rajasthan 185 approved.
The appellant companytested the election petition.
6 of 1985 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat under section 81 of the Act questioning the validity of the election of the appellant on various grounds.
P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namekkal Constitutency and others, 1952 S.C.R. 218 Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaban D. Kania Anr.,
Vithalbhai B. Patel and R.P. Kapoor for the Respondents.
183 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.,
6 of 1985.
