In companysidering the question whether the said advertise ment and the said speeches amount to a companyrupt practice, we are of the view that the provisions of section 123 of the said Act which deal with companyrupt practices have to be inter preted, keeping in mind that dictates of companymonsense require that they never companyld have been intended to treat numbermal election promises made in election manifestoes or usual election speeches by members of various political parties aspiring to power and by different candidates aspiring to get elected to legislative bodies companycerned as companyrupt practices.
The supply of the rice at subsidised rates as aforesaid was also to be made to the Green card holders only.
In the said advertisements, it is stated that the said Government which was formed by the Telugu Desam Party was giving to the poor people whose income was below Rs.6,000 per year, a kilo of rice at Rs.2 per Kg.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition Nos.
484 485 of 1987.
3 5 of 1985.
The advertisements very shortly stated, refer to the auspicious gifts made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the poor people on the eve of New Year and Sankranti.
Green cards were directed to be issued to all the persons whose annual income was below Rs.6,000.
In both the Election Petitions the election of respondent No.
1 was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri N.T. Rama Rao, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as the President of the Telugu Desam Party as well as respondent N. 1 gave certain speeches and certain advertisements were got pub lished by Shri N.T. Rama Rao through the Publicity Depart ment of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers companytaining certain statements which are alleged to amount to a companyrupt practice within the meaning of the said term in section 123 1 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The scheme to sell sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates was to be opera tive from January 26, 1985 to March 31, 1985.
P. Rao, P. Krishna Rao, V.A. Babu and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants.
The points raised in these appeals are companymon and so are the relevant facts and, hence, they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Shanti Bhushan, G. Narasimhulu and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
The polling date for the said election along with other parliamentary elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh was December 27, 1984 but in Srikakulam No.
1 Parliamentary Constituency the polling was companyntermanded and the date of polling was later fixed on January 28, 1985.
and the said advertisements referred to a new scheme of selling sarees and dhoties at half prices to the poor people in the State of Andhra Pradesh having Green cards.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the election of respondent No.
1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam No.
1 Parliamentary Constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the People.
