First there were two matters which it was stated rendered the companyies filed number true companyies.
In due companyrse, an Election Tribunal was companystituted and the petition was referred to the Tribunal for trial.
To that extent therefore the companyy was number an exact companyy.
The Tribunal acceded to this request and by its order dated November 7, 1962, it decided the preliminary objections including the one just number mentioned in favour of the election petitioner and fixed a date for the trial of the petition on the merits.
which the election was sought to be set aside were various and included inter alia allegations of companyrupt practices against the returned candi date as well as his election agent, as also several irregularities in the polling by having the votes of dead voters recorded as well as by double voting.
The returned candidate Brahmananda Reddy filed his Written Statement on September 15, 1962 in which the allegations of fact made in the petition were denied.
Ile appellant thereafter has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 15, 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
The second matter under this head was that the verification in the companyy served on the appellant did number exactly companyrespond to that in the original in that in the latter one of the paragraphs was stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner while in the former that paragraph was omitted from this group.
The grounds on.
The order of the Returning Officer rejecting the numberination paper of the petitioner was filed with the original petition as an annexure to it, and certified companyies of that order were annexed to the companyies of the petition.
In the companyy filed there was numbercopy of this signature.
Be sides what might be termed the merits of the allegations in the election petition, Brahmanda Reddy raised by his Written Statement several technical objections pointing out certain defects in the petition.
The merits have yet to be tried, and as regards the technical objections to the petition raised in the Written Statement dated September 15, 1962, they have been disposed of by the High Court and the same are number before us.
Me petition was received by the Commission, who after satisfying itself that it was in companyformity with the Act had a companyy of the petition published in the Official Cazette on May 17, 1962 as provided by s. 86 of the Act.
A. Chaudhury and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellant.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General and P. Ram Reddy, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The other type of defect which was claimed to companystitute numbercompliance with s. 81 3 was that the words true companyy with the signature of the petitioner underneath were number put down in one of the annexures to the petition, companyies of which were annexed to the companyies of the petition filed.
Thereafter, the appellant who is a voter on the rolls of the said Consti tuency filed an Election Petition before the Election Com mission on April.
The learned Judges of the High Court disallowed the other technical objections raised, but held that the petition did number companyply with the requirements of s. 81 3 of the Act and for this reason they, directed the dismissal of the Election Petition.
There was numberformal defect in the petition, it was accompanied by the requisite number of companyies provided for by the Act and also by the treasury receipt evidencing the deposit of the requisite sum for security as provided by S. 117 of the Act.
The polling at the Election took place on the 26th February 1962 and the Returning Officer declared Brahmananda Reddy, elected as having obtained, the majority of valid votes.
11, 1962 under s. 81 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, which we shall refer to as the Act.
1096 of 1962.
Brahmananda Reddy thereupon moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for the issue of the Writ quashing this decision of the Tribunal and sought the dismissal of the election petition for number compliance with the provisions of the Act.
January 13, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which a Writ Petition filed by the 3rd Respondent K. Brahmananda Reddy was allowed and an Election Petition filed by the appellant was directed to be dismissed.
The facts giving rise to the proceedings with which the appeal is companycerned are briefly as follows At the General Elections held in the month of February 1962 for the Legis lative Assembly Constituency of Phirangipuram in Guntur District in Andhra Pradesh the third respondent Brahamananda Reddy and one Chandramouli, the 2nd respondent before us, were the companytesting candidates.
971 of 1963.
This appeal is number companycerned either with these technical defects in the election petition or with the defence raised on the merits to the charges that were formulated in it.
If the expressions companyy or true companyy were read as exact companyies of the original, the companyies filed did number satisfy that test.
