Niren De, Attorney General, G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate General.
C. Chagla and S. M. Jain, for respondent.
16 of 1967.
Rajasthan and K. B. Mehta, for the State of Rajasthan.
The Judgment of S. M. SiKRi, A. N. RAY and P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.was delivered by SIKRI, J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.f.
Shri Murli Manohar Vyas, Government Advocate in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur was appointed by the Government to represent it in these arbitration proceedings.
Later, on Sept. 3, 1965, the Government laid down the fees payab le to the appellant.
Mrs. Kathuria is an advocate practicing at Bikaner.
and G. K. MITTER, J. gave a separate opinion.
Shri Mathur in the presence of the appellant offered and promised to get several works done in those areas if the electors were to cast votes for the appellant at the said election.
The Government Advocate wanted one more advocate to assist him.
She companytested the above election held on February 18, 1967 against seven other candidates.
The appellant was declared duly elected by the Returning officer on, February 22, 1967, the appellant having secured 11926 and the respondent having secured 8311 votes.
An appeal was filed in this Court on August 20, 1968.
One of the defeated candidates filed the election petition, from which this appeal arises, questioning her election on several grounds.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On his suggestion, Shri Manak Lal Mathur advocate was appointed to assist the Government Advocate.
It was stated in the order dated Sept. 3, 1965 that Smt.
She was declared elected on February 22, 1967.
This judgment was given on August 12, 1968.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Members Prevention of Disqualification Act, 1969 Act No.
5 of 1969 hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act , was passed, which received the assent of the Governor on April 4, 1969.
proposal was approved by the Rajasthan Law Minister on March 30, 1965 and on June 26, 1965, and the Government issued the following order Sub Construction of R.P.S. Main Dam Con tract of M s M.C.C. PVT Ltd. Arbitration in dispute arising out of In pursuance of rule 8 b of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with clause 7 of section 2 of the Code, the Governor is pleased to appoint Smt.
The facts relevant for appreciating the first point are these The appellant was an advocate at all material times.
The last point raised by him is that the petition was number in accordance with law as the respondent, Shri Surana, had number impleaded Shri Mathur as respondent to the petition.
V. Gupte, M. M. Tiwari, H. K. Puri, Bishamber Lal, K. Garg, K. K. Jain and S. P. Vij, for the appellant.
Shri Mathur visited the companystituency during the election very frequently and during these visits the appellant accompanied by Shri Mathur visited several places in the Constituency where.
As there was a possibility that Shri Manak Lal Mathur may number be available to help the Government Advocate, the appellant was, on the suggestion of the Government Advocate, appointed to assist him in the ,absence of Shri Mathur.
These disputes were referred to arbitration.
In spite of these allegations of companyrupt practice, Shri Mathur was number made a party to the petition.
It was alleged in the election petition that the appellant was a close friend of one Shri Mathura Dass Mathur who was a Minister in the Slate of Rajasthan at the time of the election, who companytested elections as a candidate in a companystituency different from that of the appellant.
Disputes arose between M s. Modern Construction, Company Private Ltd. and the State of Rajasthan in companynection with some works relating to the Rana Pratain Sagar Dam.
1869 of 1968.
As Shri Manak Lal Mathur was number able to appear in the case, on Nov. 18, 1965 the Governor sanctioned the payment of daily fee of Rs.
150/ to Shri Manak Lal Mathur.
The relevant portion of Art.
Kanta Kathuria who has been appointed to assist the Government advocate in the absence of Shri Mathur will get her share of fee in proportion to the assistance rendered by her out of the daily fee of Rs.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 12, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No.
