In the election petition, two main companyrupt practices were alleged to have been companymitted by the returned candidate one falling under Section 123 1 A b of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the other falling under Section 123 4 of the Act.
LITTTTTTJ JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 3.6.1999, dismissing an election petition filed by the appellant at the threshold on sustaining preliminary objection.
The appellant filed an election petition seeking to declare the election of returned candidate void on various grounds and for a further declaration that the appellant be declared duty elected as Member of the Legislative Assembly after setting aside election of the returned candidate.
39 of the election petition, while material facts and particulars companycerning companymission of companyrupt practice falling under Section 123 4 of the Act are companytained in paragraphs 12 to 27 of the election petition.
The material facts and particulars companycerning allegations of companyrupt practice insofar as companyrupt practice under Section 123 1 is companycerned, are companytained from paragraphs 28 to.
The appellant, who was a candidate set up by the Congress Party was defeated by respondent No .1, the returned candidate, who had been set up by the Akali Dal Badal group .
The polling took place on 7.2.1997 and after companynting of votes on 9.2.1997, respondent No.l was declared elected.
The elections to companystituency No .96, Perozepur Cantt of Punjab Legislative Assembly were held in 1997.
In view of the limited nature of companytroversy involved in this appeal, we are relieved of the necessity of giving break up of votes or mention about other candidates, who had also companytested the election.
