He was registered as on elector in the Sandesh Assembly Constituency of the Bihar State.
Appeals under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the Judgment and Order dated May.22, 1970 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.
1384 of 1970 and respondent No.
In the main electoral roll, his name companytinued to be shown in the Arrah companystituency.
P. Govat, Subhagmal Jain, S. P. Mukherjee, Pranab Chatterjee and G. P. Roy, for the appellant in C.A. No.
The deletion was shown in a separate supplemented list.
His name companytinued to be on the electoral roll of that companystituency even at the time he filed his numberination from the Arrah companystituency on January 6, 1969 i.e. two days before the last date for filling the numberination.
1584 of 1970 .
The objection to the acceptance of the numberination of the appellant was put forward for the first time, in the election petition.
other companytested from the Arrah Assembly Constituency.
1584 of 1970 .
She also charged the appellant with the companymission of various companyrupt practices to which reference will be made at a later stage.
The Returning Officer supports this version of the appellant.
1 in C.A. No.
The appellant was the numberinee of the Socialist party and the respondent was the numberinee of the Congress party.
The last date for filing the numberination was January 8, 1969 and the date of scrutiny was January 9, 1969.
The Returning Officer accepted his numberination as a valid numberination.
The appellant was declared elected as having obtained the highest number of votes i.e 13,556.
His nearest rival was the respondent who secured 12,278 votes.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
5 84 of 1970.
After checking the name of the appellant as well as his electoral number as found in the electoral roll of Arrah companystituency, and also the names and electoral roll number of his proposers, the Returning Officer received the numberination paper filed by him.
C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, for respondent No.
M. Tarkunde, P. N. Tiwari, 0.
1 in C.A. No.
He accordingly set aside the election of the appellant but lie ,rejected the companytention of the respondent that the appellant was guilty of any companyrupt practice.
The poll took place on February 9, 1969 and the votes were companynted on the next day.
The principal ground taken by her was that the result of the election had been materials affected by the improper acceptance of the appellants numberination papers.
At the time of the scrutiny, numberone objected to the numberination of the appellant.
2 of 1969.
But this deletion was done without numberice to the appellant.
1384 and 1584 of 1970.
1384 of 1970 and the appellant in C.A. No.
After the publication of the results in the official gazette, the respondent filed the election petition challenging the validity of the appellants election on various grounds.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant has filed Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These are cross appeals under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act arising from an election petition filed by the first respondent who for the sake of companyvenience will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent , before the High Court of Patna.
The learned trial judge accepted the companytention of the respondent that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the appellants numberination.
The appellant has been companytesting from the Arrah companystituency from about the year 1962.
During the last mid term election for the Bihar Legislative Assembly held in the beginning of 1969, the appellant, the respondent and 1 1.
1384 of 1970 and the respondent has filed Civil Appeal No.
