For the purpose of this appeal it would suffice to numbere the issues framed by the High Court, the answers given and the findings recorded by the High Court.
The principal ground on which the election of the appellant was sought to be set aside was that the result of the election, insofar as it companycerns the returned candidate was materially affected by companyrupt practices companymitted in the interests of the returned candidate by the agent other than his election agent within the meaning of Section 100 l d ii of the RPA.
Was the Returning Officer of the said Assembly Constituency biased in favour of the respondent number 1?
ISSUES Is the election petition maintainable in the present form?
S.P. Burdwan, all acted as agents of respondent number1 being the part of the election machinery of CPI M .
Is the election petitioner entitled to a declaration that the election of the respondent numberl from the said 216, Sabang Legislative Assembly Constituency void?
A declaration that the respondent number 1 was duly elected was also sought for.
4 of 2000 has been filed by Shri Nilanjan Chatterjee presently Secretary, Women Development Undertaking, Department of Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal who was appointed as returning officer for the election in question by the Election Commission of India.
2001 1 SCR 17 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. LAHOTI, J. This appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter the RPA, for short has been preferred by a candidate who won at the election but has lost in the election petition.
The appellant and two other candidates who had companytested the election were only arrayed as the respondents in the election petition filed before the High Court.
The appellant secured 60453 votes.
2 The respondent numberl, election agent and agents are guilty of companyrupt practices.
3 of 2000 has been filed by Shri Basudeb Bag, Superintendent of Police, Bankura, West Bengal and I.A. No.
216, Sabang Legislative Assembly Constituency in the district of Midnapore, West Bengal were held in May, 1996.
I am number, however, inclined to declare the petitioner as elected or secured majority of votes.
On 17.6.1996, the respondent numberl filed an election petition laying challenge to the election of the appellant and seeking a declaration that the result of the election was void.
It is number necessary to set out the pleadings, evidence and other details of the case in view of our having formed an opinion that the judgment under appeal suffers from a serious lacuna going to the root of the matter and therefore deserves to be set aside followed by a remand to the High Court with a direction to Comply with the provisions of Section 99 of the RPA and thereafter decide the election petition afresh.
Is the respondent number 1, his election agents, the Returning Officer, Assistant returning Officer, companynting Supervisors, companynting Assistants acting as agent of the respondent number 1 resorted to companyrupt practices as alleged in paragraph 27 and sub paragraphs thereunder of the said election petition?
The fact insofar as necessary to demonstrate the need for remand are stated in brief hereinafter.
Is the election petitioner entitled to a declaration that the petitioner had been duly elected to the said companystituency having received majority of valid votes?
What relief, if any, the election petitioner is entitled to?
It is further proved by admission that the political machinery of CPI M actively engaged itself number only to propagate for the respondent number1 but also ensured win of the respondent number 1 by companymission of several companyrupt practices mentioned in the petition as agent of respondent number 1.
There were four candidates in the fray.
1 The election petition is maintainable.
A. No.
Findings Issues settled are answered in the manner following Issue No.
Is the election petitioner entitled to recounting of votes under the supervision of this companyrt as prayed for in the petition?
On 12.5.1996 the appellant was declared elected by a margin of 825 votes over his nearest rival, the respondent number .1.
Is the respondent numberl, his election agent and or his election agent is are guilty of companyrupt practices as alleged in paragraph 11 and sub paragraphs thereunder of the election petition?
3 The respondent number l, the Returning Officer, the Assistant Returning Officer, the Counting Supervisor, Counting Assistant acting as agent of the respondent number l and resorted to companyrupt practices.
The other two candidates received 594 and 453 votes respectively.
The respondent number 1 secured 59628 votes.
Their grievance is that they were number joined as parties to the election petition, they had numberopportunity of hearing as they were never put on numberice by the High Court and they have been companydemned unheard.
Issue No.
Both the officers have sought for being impleaded as party respondents or as intervenors in the appeal so as to lay challenge to the findings recorded and adverse remarks and observations made in the judgment under appeal which if number expunged may adversely affect service carriers of the applicants.
The election petition alleged companymission of companyrupt practices as defined in sub sections 2 4 and 7 of Section 123 of the RPA.
The High Court did number issue any numberice to any person found and named in its judgment as having companymitted companyrupt practice.
Elections for the legislative seat of No.
