The Court further found that there was numbercreditable evidence to substantiate the allegations of the appellant that the Minister for Self Government was actuated by mala fides in passing the Order.
The appellant urged that the Minister for Self Government acted mala fide in passing the Order as the Minister was on inimical terms with him and that he wanted the respondent who belonged to his political party to win in the election by appointing men belonging to his political party as companymissioners of the area companymittee in question.
He further alleged that the Government of Bihar published numberification No.
The appellant filed an election petition before the High Court under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act for setting aside the election of the respondent in the election held in April 26 1970 to the Bihar Legislative Council from Darbhanga Local Authorities Constituency and for declaring the appellant as the duly elected member from the aforesaid companystituency.
The High Court companysidered these allegations and the evidence adduced to prove them and came to the companyclusion that as the life of the previous companymittee had expired, the Minister had power to appoint, new companymissioners under Section 389 read with Section 13 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, and that there was numberirregularity in the numberification or in the proceedings of the Registration Officer in entering the names of the new companymissioners of the Area Committee in the electoral roll of the companystituency.
The Appellant secured 60 votes and Respondent No.
It was also alleged in the petition that the election was vitiated by companyrupt practices, namely, that the respondent gave bribes to 3 voters and offered bribes to 6 other voters and that he canvassed votes on the basis of his caste from among the voters belonging to his caste.
The election from the companystituency was numberified on March 26, 1970 the last date for filing numberinations was April 2, 1970 3 p.m. The appellant and respondents 1 to 5 in the election petition filed their numberination papers and they were all found valid after scrutiny.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent was declared elected.
Thereafter the companytest was between the appellant and respondents 1 to 4.
2, 3 and 4 secured 27, 6, 6 votes respectively and so Respondent No.
1970, under Section 389 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, by which he appointed 31 new companymissioners to the Jainagar Notified Area Committee and dropped 6 out of the 15 existing companymissioners and that the names of the 31 companymissioners have been entered in the electoral roll of the companystituency.
1 86 Respondents Nos.
The High Court dismissed the petition and this appeal is directed against that Order.
The appellant alleged in the election petition that on April 2, 1970, only 145 persons were entered as voters in electoral roll of the companystituency, which companyprised the Municipalities and numberified area companymittees specified in paragraph 4 of the election petition and that the number of voters of Jainagar Notified Area Committee, which was also included in this companystituency, was only 15.
Respondent No.
2308/LSC on March 27, 1970, in pursuance to an order of the Minister for Local Self Government made on March 28.
5 in the election petition withdrew her candidature.
The poll took place on 26 4 70 and the result of the poll was announced on 27 4 1970.
