As regards the other two findings, one relates to the receiving of assistance from Paramessh warappa, who is a Patel, by respondent No.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 1 1 th January, 1954, of the High Court of Judicature of Mysore in Civil Petition No.
29 of 1953, quashing the Order of the Election Tribunal, Shimoga, dated the 15th January, 1953, in Shimoga No.
I by himself or through his agents were guilty of a number of major companyrupt practices which materially affected the result of the election.
1 to be void and the petitioner to have been duly elected.
1 and directed the issue of a writ of certiorari as praved for.
The Election Commission referred the matter for determination by the Election Tribunal at Shimoga and it came up for hearing before it on the 25th of October, 1952.
Despite the objection of respondent No.
The appellant thereafter filed a petition before the Election Commission, challenging the validity of the election, inter alia, on the grounds that there was violation of the election rules in regard, to certain matters and that the respondent No.
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand R. Ganapathy Iyer and M. S. K. Sastri, with him for respondent No.
The hearing of the case then proceeded and on the averments made by the respective parties, as many as 27 issues were framed.
The Tribunal by a majority of 2 to 1 found all these issues in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.
S. Krishnaswami Iyengar K. S. Venkataranga Iyengar and M. S. K. Iyengar, with him for the appellant.
1, as well as eight other persons, who figured as respondents Nos.
1, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14 are material for our present purpose and they stand as follows Has there been infringement of the rules relating to the time of companymencement of poll by reason of the fact that the polling at Booth No.
I of 195253 and quashing the same including the order pro numbernced by the Tribunal as mentioned above.
The facts material for purposes of this appeal may be briefly narrated as follows The appellant and respondent No.
The judgment of the Tribunal is dated the 15th of January, 1953.
The petitioner prayed for a declaration that the election of respondent No.
The remaining three candidates, who were respondents Nos.
Did the 1st respondent take the assistance of a number of Government servants to further the prospects of his election as alleged in paragraph 2 of the list of particulars ?
It is against this judgment that the appellant has companye up to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court under articles 132 1 and 133 1 c of the Constitution.
May 5.
It was stated at the same time that in case this relief companyld number be granted, the petitioner would, in the alternative pray for the relief originally claimed by him, namely, that the election of respondent No.
did number really companymence until about half an hour later as alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition Did the 1st respondent hire and procure a motor bus which was a service bus running between Tarikere and Hiriyur, belonging to one Ahmed Jan, as alleged in paragraph I of the particulars and thereby companymit the companyrupt practice referred to in it ?
1 and on the strength of their findings on these issues, declared the election of respondent No.
Of them, issues Nos.
1 was found to have secured 8,093 votes which was the largest in number and the appellant followed him closely having obtained 8,059 votes.
1, in furtherance of his prospects of election.
2 to 9 in the proceeding before the High Court, were duly numberinated candidates for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Tarikere Constituency at the general election of that State held in January , 1952.
I of 1952 53.
On that date the appellant filed an application for amendment of the petition, heading it as one under Order VI, rule 17, of the Civil Procedure Code, and the only amendment sought for was a modification of the prayer clause by adding a prayer for declaring the entire election to be void.
CiiviL Appellate JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Is the return of election expenses lodged by the 1st respondent false in material particulars and has the 1st respondent omitted to include in the return of election expenses, expenses incurred by him in companynection with the election which would easily exceed the sanctioned limit of, Rs.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Jindra Lal, Porus A. Mehta and P. O. Gokhale, with him for respondent No.
lodged his return of election expenses with the necessary declaration sometime after that and numberice of this return was published on the 31st March, 1952.
This application was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Medappa C.J. and Balakrishnaiya J. and by their judgment dated the.
As a result, of the companynting the respondent No.
On the 5th February, 1953, the respondent No.
2, 3 and 4 before the High Court, got respectively 6,239, 1,644 and 1,142 votes.
1 to be the successful candidate and this declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on the 11th February, 1952.
1 of 1952 53.
I should be declared to be void and the petitioner himself be held to be the elected candidate at the election.
The respondent No.
11th January, 1954, the learned Judges allowed the petition of respondent No.
5,000 as per particulars stated in paragraph 7 of the list of particulars Has the election of the 1st respondent been procured and induced by the said companyrupt practices with the result that the election has been materially affected ?
I was void and that he himself was duly elected.
48 of 1954.
Five of these numberinated candidates withdrew their candidature within the prescribed period and the actual companytest at the election was between the remaining five candidates including the appellant and respondept No.
1, the Tribunal granted this prayer for amendment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKERGEA J. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court, dated the 11th January, 1954, by which the learned Judges granted an application, presented by the respondent No.
The polling took place on the 4th January, 1952, and the votes were companynted on the 26th of January following.
The Returning Officer declared the respondent No.
I for Ajjampur fixed at Ajjampur to take place at 8 A.m.
I under article 226 of the Constitution, and directed a writ of certiorari to issue quashing the,, proceedings and order of the Election Tribunal, Shimoga, dated the 15th January, 1953, in Shimoga Election Case No.
Would the petitioner have obtained a majority of votes had it number been for the aforesaid companyrupt and illegal practices on the part of the first respondent?
I presented an application before the Mysore High Court under article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the proceeding of the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No.
This petition, which bears date, 10th of April, 1952, was sent by registered post to the Election Commission and was actually received by the latter on the 14th of April, following.
