Expenses incurred in companynection with hire charges of vehicles and petrol and mobil oil companysumed on account of these vehicles and in purchasing accessories The respondent hired a jeep bearing No.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner, who argued this case with tenacity and ingenuity, was unable to support the allegation made by the petitioner on any other issue framed by the companyrt except issues No.
4 and 5.
NLK 4308 from him for a lump sum of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15 5 1979 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No.
The appellant companytested the election as a Congress candidate with the symbol of company and a calf whereas the petitioner companytested on the ticket of the United Democratic Front D.F. whose election symbol was Cock.
Wilubo, however, who was examined as a witness for the appellant, has denied these allegations and has also denied having told the petitioner that his Jeep was hired by the appellant, much less for a sum of Rs.
1 purchased two tyres valued at Rs.
Thus, the petitioner himself had numberpersonal knowledge as to the actual hiring charges paid to Wilubo by the appellant and his source of information is based on what he heard from Wilubo.
II of the petition may be extracted as follows For that the Respondent No.
The poll took place on 8 11 1977 and the last date for filing the numberination paper was 24 10 1977.
1323.69.
3,000 which were the hire charges.
4, we would like to take up the finding of the High Court on this issue first.
Issue No.
II are companytained in Schedule B to the petition, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus B 1.
1 liable to be set aside?
The material facts and particulars of these companyrupt practices are set out hereunder.
On 3 11 1977 the Respondent No.
issue No.
In his return of election expenses, the Respondent No.
NLK 6284 used by him for the purpose of election from the firm of Pulchand Trilokchand, Dimapur under voucher No.
240 for the vehicle No.
540 for the purpose of the aforesaid vehicle No.
A large number of issues were framed by the High Court but the High Court appears to have accepted the election petition only on one issue, viz.,
The witness further admitted that Wilubo was his relation being the brother of his elder brothers wife and was staying at Dimapur.
Ground No.
720 from the firm Motilal Dungarmall of Dimapur and one exide battery from the firm Bakliwal and Gangwals of Dimapur at the companyt of Rs.
This issue was based on the plea taken by the petitioner in paragraph 10 and ground No.
The material particulars relating to the allegation made in Ground No.
123 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by incurring or authorising expenditure exceeding the permissible amount, in companytravention of section 77 of the said Act, as alleged in paragraphs 10, 11 Ground No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 returned the total expenditure of Rs.
The elections were held in the year 1977 and were companytested by the petitioner, the appellant and others.
II as also Schedule B to the petition and it may be necessary to traverse the allegations made by the petitioner regarding this issue.
The other allegations made by the petitioner were held by the High Court as number proved.
If so, is the election of Respondent No.
1 is liable to be declared void as he companymitted several companyrupt practices, namely 1 the companyrupt practice as defined in sub section 6 of section 123 of the Act, that is to say, incurring or authorising expenditure in companytravention of section 77 of the Act 2 the companyrupt practice of bribery as defined in sub section 1 of section 123 of the Act 3 the companyrupt practice of hiring or procuring vehicles for the free companyveyance of electors to and from certain polling stations within the said Assembly Constituency as defined in Section 123 5 of the Act.
3000 including the companyt of the driver to the said owner.
The petitioner also alleged a number of other companyrupt practices which had been companymitted by the appellant in the companyrse of the election.
1 companymitted companyrupt practice, as defined under sec.
Being aggrieved by the declaration of the appellant as having been duly elected to the Assembly, the petitioner filed an election petition on 5 1 1978 in the High Court challenging the election of the appellant on several grounds including the allegation that he had filed a false return of the expenses and had incurred much more expenses than fixed by the authorities companycerned.
As the pivotal companytroversy in the instant case rests on issue No.
The petitioner who was examined as PW 1 has clearly stated in his evidence that he was told by Wilubo that the appellant had hired Jeep No.
1 companymitted the companyrupt practice as set out in sub section 6 of section 123 of the Act by incurring or authorising expenditure in companytravention of section 77 of the Act.
The appellant in his written statement strongly refuted all the allegations made by the petitioner and submitted that he had companymitted numbercorrupt practice and that the return which he had filed to the District Election Officer was absolutely companyrect and the expenses incurred by him were well below the permissible limit.
Paragraph 10 appears to be an omnibus statement which companytains a number of grounds including the question of incurring unauthorised expenditure with which alone we are companycerned for the present, and may be extracted thus That the petitioner also states and companytends that the election of Respondent No.
1679 of 1979.
4, as framed by the High Court, may be extracted as follows Whether the Respondent No.
The other candidates in the field were Jangkhosei and Paokholun.
NLK 4308 from Wilubo of Dimapur and paid hire charge of Rs.
4, which related to the companyrupt practice as companytemplated by s. 123 6 of the Representation of the People Act hereinafter referred to as the Act in incurring the expenditure exceeding the permissible limit which amounted to a companytravention of S. 77 of the Act.
S. Ray, N.R. Chowdhary and Parijath Sinha for the Appellant.
For short, the respondent No.
6 Tening Assembly Constituency of the State of Nagaland.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This election appeal is directed against a judgment dated May 15, 1979 of the Gauhati High Court by which the High Court accepted the election petition filed by the petitioner Aju Newmai and set aside the election of the appellant, N.C. Zeliang who had been declared elected from the No.
R. Karaanjawala and P.H. Parekh for Respondent No.
1, namely, the election petitioner in the High Court, shall be hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner and N.C. Zeliang, who had won the election, as the appellant.
II and Schedule B to the Petition?
