There was numberlist of particulars attached to the petition as provided in s. 83 2 of the Act.
On December 27, 1951, an eye relief camp was similarly.
organised and opened at Kakori.
The Petitioner has number named ,the Government servants.
Respondent No.
That application was also companytested by the appellants.
On January 16, 1953, the respondent herein filed a replication in which he sought to weave the above allegations into the fabric of his petition, but the result was a mere patchwork.
The material allegations in the petition as it was presented on June 10, 1952, are companytained in para 7 c , and are as follows That the respondents Nos.
This meeting was attended by, the District Magistrate.
S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, S. P. Sinha and R. Patnaik, for respondent No.
4 had filed an application to raise additional issues on his averments that the appellants had obtained assistance from the village officers.
The respondents Nos.
Lucknow, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Tahsildar, Lucknow and Patwaris and Qanungo of Kakori Circle.
1 and 2.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, R. C. Gupta, S. Trivedi and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
I and 2 and also became their polling agents.
1 and 2.
Appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated March 23, 1955, of the Election Tribunal, Lucknow, in Election Petition No.
I and 2 to be held within a short distance of the proposed eye relief camp on the same day.
As regards the first point, the main companytention of the appellants that the charge that they had employed four Mukhias in furtherance of their, election prospects was number pleaded in the petition as originally presented and that it came in only by an amendment dated November 28, 1953, that.
4, who was a defeated candidate and supported the respondent herein, filed a written statement on December 3, 1952, wherein he alleged that the appellants had obtained services of village officers, such as Lambardars and Sarpanches in furtherance of their election prospects.
They also filed an application on the same date for a preliminary hearing of certain issues relating to the companytentions raised by them in their written statements that the allegations in the petition were vague and should be struck off for want of particulars, and the same was posted for hearing on February 25, 1953.
The polling, took place on 31 1 1952, and the two appellants we re declared elected, they having secured the largest number of votes.
1 and 2.
I and 2 and issued appeals to the public to vote for respondents Nos.
An election meeting was advertised by the workers of the respondents Nos.
On June 10 1952, the respondent herein filed a petition under S. 81 of the Act alleging that the appellants had companymitted a number of companyrupt practices, and prayed that the election might be declared wholly void.
1 and 2 companyld in furtherance of their election enlist the support of certain Government servants.
This application was opposed by the appellants on the ground that the amendment did number fall within s. 83 3 ,that, the matters sought to be introduced thereby were new charges, and if admitted, they would alter the very character of the petition, and that it should number be granted, as a fresh petition on those allegations would be barred on that date.
1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Election Tribunal, Faizabad, declaring the election of the appellants to the Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh from the Lucknow Central Constituency, void under s. 100 2 b of the Representation of the People Act No.
It was presented under s. 83 3 of the Act, and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to amend the details of para 7 c by adding the words Village Headmen with their names and the fact that they worked and issued appeal and subsequently they became the polling agents of respondents Nos.
On November 10, 1953, the Tribunal by a majority passed an order dismissing the application of the fourth respondent for additional issues.
Respondent No.
I and 2 by this device succeeded in creating an impression on the voters that they had the support of the district officials.
The written statement of the second appellant filed on December 20, 1952, was also on the same lines as those of the first appellant.
Meantime, after the preliminary argument aforesaid had companymenced and before it was companycluded, the respondent filed on February 27, 1953, an application for amendment of his petition, the order on which is the main target of attack in this appeal.
He also stated that the allegations were number accompanied by a list, and were vague and lacking in particulars and were liable to be struck off.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil AppEal No.333 of 1956.
320 of 1952.
December 21.
XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
On January 10, 1953, the respondent filed a replication to the written statements of the appellants, wherein he stated as follows As stated in the petition, the denial of the respondents Nos.
statements denying these allegations, and on the pleadings, issues were framed on January 17, 1953.
one of the seats being reserved for a member of the Scheduled Castes.
The District Magistrate, Lucknow, organised the opening of eye relief camps, and these functions were utilised for the election propaganda of the respondents Nos.
It mentioned for the first time the names of the Mukhias whose assistance the appellants have been held to have obtained.
As a result of these proceedings, it was number until September, 1954, that the hearing of the petition began On March 23, 1955, the Tribunal delivered its judgment and, by a majority, it set aside the election on two grounds, 1 that the appellants had obtained the assistance of four village officers, Mukhias, in furtherance of.
their election prospects and had thereby companytravened s.123 8 of the Act and 2 that the first appellant had employed for payment in companynection with high election two persons in addition to the number permitted by Rule 118 read with Schedule VI, namely, Ganga Prasad and Viswanath Pande, and had there by infringed s. 123 7 of the Act.
Nothing further is heard of this charge, until we companye to December, 1952, when respondents 4 and 9 who sailed with the petitioner, filed statements alleging that the appellants had obtained the assistance from Government servants including Mukhias in furtherance of their election prospects.
This meeting was amongst others addressed by Sri G. B. Pant, Chief Minister, P., Sri C. B. Gupta and the respondent No.
The appellants filed written.
In these meetings at Kakori many government servants took part and some worked for furtherance of the election of respondents Nos.
9 who was another defeated candidate also filed a written statement on the same day, adopting the allegations in the statement of the fourth respondent adding Mukhias to the list of village officials whose assistance was procured by the Appellants.
It would appear that this application and the amendment petition were heard together.
It was also attended by the Patwaris and Qanungo of the, Kakori Circle including the Tahsildar, Lucknow and the Duty Superintendent of Police, Lucknow.
The Constituency is a double member Constituency.
An eye relief camp was proposed to be opened on December 16, 195 1, at Kakori by Sri C. B. Gupta, Minister, Civil Supplies, U.P., one of the chief organisers of the election of the respondents Nos.
1 and 2 is absolutely wrong, inasmuch as many Government servants worked for, issued appeals and became polling agents for respondents I and 2.
It should be mentioned that oh January 22, 1953, respondent No.
He shall supply the names of the officials including those of the Patwaris and Qanungoes.
On January 24, 1953, the appellants filed a written statement objecting to the reception of the replication on the ground that the petitioner respondent had numberright to file it and that it was a mere device to add to the original petition.
On December 15, 1952, the first appellant filed his written statement, and therein he stated with reference to para 7 c that it was wrong and denied that the answering respondent in furtherance of his election enlisted the support of any government servant.
The ceremony this time was performed by Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi Pandit and immediately thereafter from the same platform and at the same place election speeches were made and the audience exhorted to vote for Mrs. Vijay Lakahmi Pandit, a candidate for the House of the People from that area and respondents Nos.
