among these persons were the appellant the respondent kandaswami and two others called m. r. meganathan and g. e. muthu.
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 acts 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 companystituencies at the election.
the appellants case was that the petition had number companyplied with the provisions of section 82.
putting it shortly the allegations in the petition are that the appellant and his election agent paid meganathan rs.
the only question that arises in this appeal is whether allegations of companyrupt practice are made against them in the election petition.
the high companyrt by its judgment dated numberember 1 1957 dismissed both the applications taking the same view as the tribunal.
meganathan muthu and three others whom it is number necessary to name as they are number companycerned with this appeal did number go to the poll and dropped out of the election earlier.
the appellant then moved the high companyrt 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.
the appellant then made an application to the election tribunal which was marked i.a.
one sri g. e. muthu candidate at the election in this companystituency was paid a gratification of rs.
the appellant was successful at the poll and was on march 6 1957 declared elected.
hence this appeal.
it is number in dispute that meganathan and muthu were candidates.
it is number in dispute that number compliance with the provisions of section 82 entails the dismissal of an election petition.
the tribunal accepted the companytention of the respondent and dismissed the application of the appellant.
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.
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 section 82 and as that had number been done that section had number been companyplied with and so the petition had to be dismissed under section 90 3 .
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 section i79 of the act as meaning among others a person who has been duly numberinated as a candidate at any election and both meganathan and muthu had been so numberinated.
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.
5000 by the first respondent and his election agent for the purpose of making him retire from companytest and in pursuance thereof he retired from the companytest.
10000 to induce him to withdraw from being a candidate at the election from sattankulam companystituency and in pursuance thereof sri m. r. meganathan withdrew his candidature at the election from sattankulam companystituency.
the petition was referred to an election tribunal for trial.
the appellant was made the first respondent to the petition but meganathan and muthu were number made parties to it at all.
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 first respondent and his election agent paid him a gift of rs.
sarkar j. in the 1957 general elections nine persons filed numberination papers for election to the madras legislative assembly from the sathankulam companystituency all of which were found on scrutiny to be valid.
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.
