From the Judgment and Order dated 22nd September 1976 of the Kamataka High Court in Election Petition No.
N. Sinha, K. R. Karanah B. P. Singh for the Appellant.
11 14 of 1976.
N. Bhat and Miss S. Pramila for the Respondent No.
Fourthly, the electoral roll had to be amended by inclusion of these 16 names.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 of 1974.
The electoral process was vitiated by companyrupt practice in which the appellant and the 2nd respondent were particeps criminis.
1 S. Chitley and Narayan Nettar for Respondent No.
Secondly, there was to be a numberification extending the term of the 11 members elected in 1968.
Thirdly, there was to be a numberification of the election of the 5 members whose return had been upheld in the High Court in June 1972.
If these steps were duly taken, 16 additional members would become electors and the party in power if these electors be longed to that party or were under its influence companyld probably expect their votes.
The petitioner had made somewhat vague, sweeping and speculative allegations about government, higher and lower echelons of officialdom and the rival candidate but, if an apology for specificity is partially present in the petition, it is about the charge of companyrupt practice roping in the returning officer cum electoral registering officer 2nd respondent and the successful candidate appellant .
Such was his case.
He ventured on an election petition with the prayer to set aside the poll verdict inter alia under s. 123 7 of the 1951 Act and also sought a declaration that he was duly elected on the score that the exclusion of the invalid votes, very probably cast in favour of the appellant, led inevitably to his arithmetical success as the one who had secured the larger number of valid votes.
