10,000 and Muthu Rs.
Appeal by certificate granted by the Madras High Court against its judgment and order dated November 1, 1957, in W. Nos.
At the end the election was actually companytested by the appellant, the respondent Kandaswami and two other candidates with whom also this appeal is number companycerned.
The petition is liable to be dismissed for number joinder of Muthu and Meganathan who were candidates as defined in s. 79 b of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The appellant was successful at the poll and was on March 6,1957, declared elected.
The appellant companytended that allegations of companyrupt practice were made in the petition against Meganathan and Muthu and they should, therefore, have been made parties to the petition under s. 82 and as that had number been done, that section had number been companyplied with and so the petition had to be dismissed under s. 90 3 .
It is number in dispute that Meganath an and Muthu were candidates.
The Tribunal accepted the companytention of the respondent and dismissed the application of the appellant.
5,000 by the first respondent and his Election Agent for the purpose of making him retire from companytest and in pursuance thereof he retired on the companytest Putting it shortly, the allegations in the petition are that the appellant and his election agent paid Meganathan Rs.
On April 15, 1957, the respondent Kandaswami whom we will hereafter refer to as the respondent, preferred an election petition under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void.
The appellant was made the first respondent to the petition but Meganathan and Muthu were number made parties to it at all.
The first respondent and his election Agent paid him a gift of Rs.
Section 82 states A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition b any other candidate against whom allegations of any companyrupt practice are made in the petition.
Hence this appeal.
The petition was referred to an Election Tribunal for trial.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.130 of 1958.
The High Court by its judgment dated November 1, 1957, dismissed both the applications, taking the same view as the Tribunal.
The appellants case was that the petition had number companyplied with the provisions of s. 82.
The appellant then made an application to the Election Tribunal which was marked I. A. No.
The appellant then moved the High Court at Madras by two applications, one for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the, order of the Tribunal dismissing his application and the other for the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the Tribunal number to proceed with the hearing of the election petition.
Some of the other candidates at the election were also made parties to the petition but it is unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to refer to them.
May 1.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, T. R. Venkatarama Iyer, K. R. Sharma and K. R. Choudhri, for the appellant.
April 30.
It is number in dispute that number compliance with the provisions of s. 82 entails the dismissal of an election petition.
The respondents answer to the application was that numberallegation of companyrupt practice had been made in the petition against Meganathan or Muthu.
A candidate has been defined in s. 79 of the Act as meaning among others, a person who has been duly numberinated as a candidate at any election and both Meganthan and Muthu had been so numberinated.
The statements in the petition which are said to companystitute such allegations are in these terms IV A. The returned candidate has companymitted the following act, of bribery corrupt practices according to section 123 1 of Act 43 of 1951 Sri M. R. Meganathan was candidate for Sattankulam and Tiruchandur Assembly Constituencies at the election.
10,000 to induce him to withdraw from being a candidate at the election from Sattankulam Constituency and in pursuance thereof Sri M. R. Meganathan withdrew his candidature at the election from Sattankulam Constituency, One Sri G. E. Muthu, candidate at the election in this Constituency was paid a gratification of Rs.
623 and 624 of 1957.
