PW 15/1 A, PW 15/1 B and PW 15/1 C produced by Permod Kumar PW 15 , it is clear that the market rates particularly for the supply of electrical equipment were very much higher than those shown to have been charged by these three firms.
368/ , the other was bill No.
We shall deal with the companytents of these written statements a little later when we examine the specific charges leveled against 26 3 the first respondent.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 6th August, 1971, the petitioner furnished particulars of the allegations companytained in paragraphs 18 to 21, 24 and 25 by an affidavit dated 19th August, 1971.
To the same effect was also the evidence of Chater Sain PW 55 .
PW 2/1 that the total number of posters printed was 3700.
This chart referred to twenty two public meetings held in support of the first respondent in Sadar Parliamentary companystituency and gave dates and places of these public meetings, the names of the speakers who spoke at these public meetings and the officers who companyered them.
PW 615.
It may also be numbered that the bill of Tandon Tent Furniture House was sought to be proved by the first respondent by examining Bhagmal Tandon RIW 14 , the sole proprietor of that firm as a witness.
He further said that the first respondent spoke at all these public meetings and the fifth respondent also spoke at one or two of them.
A reply to these particulars was given by the first respondent on 26th August, 1971.
270 dated 24th February, 1971 for Rs.
R 27 which showed a companysolidated charge of Rs.
Surely, the first respondent must have maintained some records to show to which public meetings furnishings and electric equipment were supplied by these three firms otherwise, how companyld he have checked whether the bills submitted by these three firms were companyrect.
This witness stated in his evidence that he carried on business of hiring out furnishings and electrical equipment and in companyrse of his business he hired out durries, stage, loud speakers etc.
In companypliance with this direction, a chart companytaining the requisite particulars prepared from the records was handed over to the companynsel for the petitioner on 5th January, 1972.
The second and the fourth preliminary issues do number survive for companysideration they were decided against the petitioner and the petitioner does number challenge the decision in appeal.
Respondents Nos.
Appeal from the Judgment Order dated the 19th May, 1972 of the Delhi High Court in E.P. No.
to respondent No.
15/ per meeting.
It is number necessary to refer to them since they were decided against the petitioner by the learned Trial Judge and the companyrectness of this decision is number assailed on behalf of the petitioner in the present appeal.
The other was an amount of Rs.
414.50 and the third was bill No.
The petitioner was put up as a candidate by the Jan Sangh, while the candidature of the first respondent Was sponsored by the Congress, which at that time, on account of the split in the Organisation, was known as the ruling Congress or the new Congress.
The third preliminary issue was decided in favour of the petitioner but it is number meaningless to discuss it because the petitioner is number pressing the ground set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 in support of the appeal.
This expenditure was supported by the bill of Tandon Tent Furniture House, R 25 which showed that for each of the twelve public meetings, Tandon Tent Furniture House had supplied twenty durris, six takhats and two chaddars at an aggregate charge of Rs.
It is also rather strange that the first respondent companyld number give particulars of the furnishings and electric equipment actually supplied by these three firms.
The companyies of these three bills were marked Exs.
Taufiq Farooqi did number state in his evidence as to what were these posters printed by his firm and denied that they were the same as the poster Annexure B to the petition.
He produced from his bill book carbon companyies of three bills in respect of furnishings and electrical equipment hired out by him to the first respondent.
The last issue was issue 14 which was directed against the fifth respondent who was alleged to have companymitted companyrupt practices.
It was number the case of the first respondent that the rates charged by these three firms were companyfessional rates.
15/1 A, PW 15/1 B and PW 15/1 C. The first respondent challenged the genuineness of these three bills and the learned Trial Judge felt serious doubt about the authenticity of these three bills and declined to act upon them.
188/ paid to Tandon Tent Furniture House for furnishings supplied for twelve public meetings held between 20th February, 1971 and 2nd March,, 1971.
But the poster Annexure B to the petition clearly ,bears the print line of Sood Litho Press and since the first respondent refused to disclose to the Court what were the posters which were got printed by him from Sood Litho Press, we would number be unjustified in holding that the posters which were printed by Sood Litho Press for the first respondent were the same as Annexure B to the petition.
271 dated 24th February, 1971 for Rs.
One was an amount of Rs.
PW 49 , who was at the material time a Sub Inspector in CID Special Branch.
He has stated that he companyered three or four election meetings of the first respondent, and though he companyld number remember the sequence, he asserted that these election meetings were at Chowk Chhe Tooti, Clock Tower, Chowk Tatoo Shah Bagichi and Pahari Dhiraj.
I during the election period.
2 to 4 were independent candidates.
The learned Trial Judge, by an order dated 12th January, 1972 upheld the claim of privilege made on the strength of this affidavit.
10,000 in companytravention of section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issues 11, 12 and 13 raised certain subsidiary questions but it appears from the judgment of the learned Trial Judge that they were number pressed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court.
Both these public meetings are included in the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent and we need number, therefore, dwell on the evidence of this witness.
Paragraph 14 alleged the invalidity of the amendment in rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 and paragraphs 18 and 19 challenged the validity of the election on the ground that about a Jac or more ballot papers, which had been chemically treated, were fraudulently introduced and that had materially affected the result of the election.
The present appeal preferred by the petitioner impugns this judgment of Mr. Justice Andley.
The petitioner, however, relied on a letter dated 12th February, 1971 Ex.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Judge preferred the present appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Though there were numberinally five candidates, the real companytest was between the petitioner and the first respondent.
N. Phadke, V. P. Nanda, N. S. Dass Bahl and D. N. Mishra, for respondent No.
He prepared from the records in his possession a list showing the public meetings held with in the jurisdiction of his police station and filed it in companyrt as Ex.
It is significant that the first respondent has number shown hiring of battery operated loudspeakers from any other party.
Respondents 3 and 4 were obviously number interested in the petition and they did number even care to appear or file any written statement.
Paragraph 24 also charged a similar companyrupt practice on the allegation that these statements were repeated by the first and the fifth respondents in public meetings as also during the companyrse of canvassing.
The election petition was companytested by the first respondent and, as the voluminous mass of record shows, it was fought out to a bitter and with great industry and thoroughness on both sides.
Mr. Justice Andley of the Delhi High Court, who heard the election petition, found in an elaborate judgment that numbere of the grounds on which the election was sought to be invalidated was established and he accordingly dismissed the election petition with companyts.
1 to 4.
Eleven candidates originally offered themselves for election from this companystituency but out of them six withdrew their candidature with the result that only five remained in the field as companytesting candidates.
The first respondent, however, did number choose to do so and preferred to rest his case marely on his oral testimony which was so vague and evasive as number to give even the particulars of the specific public meetings at which furnishings and electric equipment were supplied by the different firms.
The ground set out in paragraph 12 was that the elector rolls, on the basis of which the election had been held, were imperfect and defective, and that vitiated the election.
These four public meetings also find a place in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police and according to that chart, the public meeting at Chowk Chhe Tooti was held on 12th February, 1971, the public meeting at Chowk Tatoo Shah Bagichi was held on 15th February, 1971, the public meeting at Clock Tower was held on 2nd March, 1971 and the public meeting at Pahari Dhiraj was held on 27th February, 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. The companytroversy in this appeal relates to the validity of election to the Lok Sabha from the Sadar Parliamentary Constituency in the Union Territory of Delhi.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil.
These were broadly the grounds on which the election of the first respondent was sought to be declared void by the petitioner.
360/ He said that one or two days before the date of the first bill, the first respondent had companye to him accompanied by Sat Prakash Makkan and one other person whose name he did number remember and placed an order with him with respect to all the three bills and the furnishings and electric equipment mentioned in these three bills were supplied by him according to the order placed by the first respondent and the payment of the amounts of these three bills was made to him personally by the first respondent.
The second respondent supported the petitioner his support was however number of much value since he did number take any active part in the petition.
50/ per ream at the relevant time.
The result was that the reports made by the officers companyprised inter alia the mental numberes made by them,were shut out from the petitioner and a very valuable piece of evidence which would have established beyond doubtwhat were the public meetings held by the first respondent was denied to the petitioner.
PW 8/2 addressed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate to Dr. Roshan Lal according permission to hold public meetings at certain places on the dates shown against them.
The petitioner secured 55305 votes, while the first respondent polled 98108 votes.
The payment of this amount was sought to be supported by the receipt of Saini Electric Works,.
PW 15/1 A, PW 15/1 B and PW 15/1 C was produced by this witness.
Suffice it to state for the present that on the basis of the preliminary objections raised in the written statements, the learned Trial Judge framed four preliminary issues and they were decided by an order dated 6th August, 1971.
Appeal No.
The charge in paragraphs 20 and 21 was that the first respondent was guilty of companyrupt practice, in that the first respondent, his election agent and other persons with his companysent, including the first respondent, had printed and published a handbill and a poster companytaining statements in relation to the personal character or companyduct of the petitioner which ware false and which the first respondent did number believe to be true, and which were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners election.
The second and the third of these publise meetings were included in the twenty three public meetings admitted yb the first respondent and the dispute was only as regards the first public meeting at Chowk Chhe Tooti on 12th February, 1971 and the fourth public meeting at Pahari Dhiraj on 27th February, 1971.
The inability to produce the records and to particularise the specific public meetings catered by these three firms is a factor which throws companysiderable doubt on the genuineness of the story of the first respondent that furnishings and electric equipment were supplied by these three firms.
30/ per ream at the relevant time and this statement was supported by the evidence of Chater Sain PW 22 .
The polling took place on 5th March, 1971 and the result of the poll was declared on 11th March, 1971.
He also gave the names of some of the other speakers at these four public meetings.
The election petition was based on numerous grounds which were summarised in paragraphs and subsequently elaborated in paragraphs 12, 14, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26.
The Inspector General of Police thereafter filed another affidavit dated 6th January, 1972 claiming privilege on the ground that the records companytained the mental numberes and reports of officials which are made by public officers in the companyrse of the discharge of their official duties, for the benefit of the CID Special Branch and the practice of keeping such documents was necessary for the proper information of the CID Special Branch, and the disclosure of these documents would lead to injury to public interest and prejudice the working of the CID Special Branch.
The learned Trial Judge, on a companysideration of the evidence presented before him, came to the companyclusion that issues 8, 9 and 10 were number established by the petitioner and there was also numbersatisfactory proof in regard to issue 14 and accordingly, by a judgment dated 19th May, 1972 he rejected the charges of companyrupt practice against the first and fifth respondents and dismissed the election petition with companyts.
N. Marwaha, A. K Marwaha and K. C. Dua, for the appellant.
They were the petition and respondents.
The petitioner thereupon filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent on various grounds.
The learned Trial Judge granted him time but made an order that the companynsel for the Inspector General of Police should give to the companynsel of the petitioner by 5th January, 1972 a list of the persons who were deputed to attend the Congress election meetings in Sadar Parliamentary companystituency together with their present official addresses, the dates of the meetings attended, the times of the meetings and the list of the speakers at such meetings.
The first respondent thus won by a large majority and was declared elected.
263 dated 20th February, 1971 for Rs.
So far as the first preliminary issue is companycerned, the learned Trial Judge held that paragraphs 9, 12, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26 did number suffer from lack of companycise statement of material facts, but they did number give full particulars of the allegations and he accordingly directed the petitioner to furnish further particulars with respect to paragraphs 18 to 21, 24 and 25 as specified in the schedule to the order.
Though the first, second and fifth respondents filed their respective written statements, the companytest was only on behalf of the first and fifth respondents.
And lastly, it was alleged in paragraphs 25 and 26 that the first respondent had incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs.
180/ , which according to the first respondent, was paid to Saini Electric Works for microphone, loudspeakers and lighting arrangements made at the same twelve public meetings.
And moreover, these documents were unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State.
180/ on account of loudspeaker and lighting arrangements for the period from 20th February, 1971 to 2nd March, 1971.
One was bill No.
He was the Station House Officer at Roshanara Road police station and he deposed from the records in his possession and filed a list PW 1/1 showing that two public meetings were held by the first respondent within the jurisdiction of his police station, one at Nagia Park on 23rd February, 1971 and the other near Birla Mills companypounds on 24th February, 1971.
1549 of 1972.
The first respondent in the return of expenses filed by him with the District Election Officer showed three amounts as having been spent by him in companynection with his public meetings.
Babu Ram Sharma PW II stated in his evidence that for printing posters of the size of Annexure B to the petition, two reams of paper 1000 would be required and the price of paper utilised in the poster Annexure B to the petition was Rs.
2 of 1971.
The first and fifth respondents raised in their written statements certain preliminary objections and also denied the various allegations made in the petition and companytested the grounds on which the petitioner claimed to set aside the election of the first respondent.
