It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been brought by special leave, The first question that arises for determination is whether Sri Padam Dev was disqualified for being chosen to the Legislative Assembly by reason of his having held at the material dates companytracts for the supply of Ayurvedic medicines to the Himachal Pradesh State Government.
As the question is one of fact, the appellant cannot be permitted at this stage to start a new and inconsistent.
Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court on the 25th January, 1954, from Judgment and Order dated the 23rd May, 1953, of the Election Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh, Simla, in Election Petition No.
On 4th August, 1952, he applied to withdraw from the petition, and that was permitted by an order of the Tribunal dated 20th September, 1952.
But numbersuch point was taken before the Tribunal where it was admitted that the material date was 12th October, 1951.
The appellant relied on certain, letters and a telegram which were sent on behalf of the respondent on 31st October, 1951, 27th November, 1951, and 30th November, 1951, as amounting to an acceptance of the companytract.
It may be companyceded in favour of the appellant that the observation of this Court in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas v. Moreshwar Parashram 1 that the material period starts with the numberination and ends with the announcement was number a decision on the point.
disqualification was operative was number the date of dec laration which was 30th November, 1951, but the date of the publication thereof in the Gazette, which was 20th December, 1951.
In this case, the order was placed by the Government on 25th September, 1951, and the goods were actually supplied on 1st December, 1951.
As regards the Mahasu companytract, the Government placed the order with the respondent on 19th November, 195 1, and the goods were supplied in December, 1951, and January, 1952.
With reference to the charge under section 123 8 , the Tribunal held by a majority that the section did number prohibit Government servants from merely proposing or seconding numberination papers, and that it had number been proved that Daulataram and Motiram did anything beyond that.
The facts giving rise to this companytention were that one Daulataram had subscribed in the numberination paper of Sri Padam Dev as proposer and one Motiram as seconder, both of them being Government servants employed in the post office, and,that one Sital Singh, an extra departmental agent, was appointed by Sri Padam Dev as one of his polling agents at a booth at Arhal.
XLIII of 1951 had number been made applicable to elections in Part C States, and that further there was numberproof that on 12th October, 1951, the date of numberination, there were companytracts subsisting between Sri Padam Dev and the Government.
By its judgment dated 25th September, 1953, the Election Tribunal held firstly that section 7 d of Act No.
It was further argued that even on the footing that there was acceptance of the companytract when the goods were dispatched on 1st December, 1951, that was sufficient to disqualify the respondent, as the terminus ad quo of the period during which the A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 236.
case, and companytend that there was an acceptance of the companytract in October or November, 1951.
The appellant, who is one of the electors in the Rohru Constituency, then applied to be brought on record as the petitioner, and that was ordered on 21st November, 1952.
On 14th February, 1952, one of the unsuccessful candidates, Gyan Singh, fifth respondent herein filed Election Petition No.
14 of 1952.
14 of 1952 challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent.
The petition was then heard on the merits.
The result was published in the Official Gazette on 20th December, 1951.
As regards Sital Singh, while two of the members took the view that section 123 8 did number prohibit the appointment of a Government servant as polling agent, the third member was of a different opinion.
52 of 1954.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
The polling took place on 23rd November, 1951, and on 30th November, 195 1, the first respondent was declared elected, he having secured the largest number of votes.
Hardayal Hardy and R. C. Prasad for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh, dismissing Election Petition No.
On 12th October, 1951, five candidates respondents 1 to 5 herein were duly numberinated for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh for the Rohru Constituency in Mahasu District.
Ved Vyas S. K. Kapur and Naunit Lal, with him for respondent No.
May 25.
14 of 1952.
