The learned Single Judge who tried the application negatived the companytention of the appellant and dismissed the writ application with these observations The petitioner may show that the Respondent No.
An election petition to declare the election of a returned candidate void lies only when the election is numberified and published under S. 14 of the Act.
1 has number been so published under section 14 of the Act, the petitioner does number have the right to challenge, it by proving companyrupt practices against Respondent No.
Since the election of the Res pondent No.
From the judgment and order dated the 18th April, 1973 of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
This is the legitimate defence.
Respondent 1 filed an election petition under S. 15 of the Corporation Act before the Election Tribunal District Judge to challenge the election inter alia on the ground of companyrupt practices particularised in para 9 of the petition.
The appellant was declared duly elected.
But he cannot go further and show that even if the Respondent No.
M. Singhvi, S. S. Dhanduja and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant.
10 of the Letters Patent to the Division Bench of the High Court.
P. Malhotra, Sat Pal, K. N. Sehgal and N. S. Das Behl, for respondent No.
the appellant carried an appeal under cl.
1 did number obtain a majority of valid votes.
The persons entitled to vote at election of Councillors are the persons registered, by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 as voters at elections to the House of the People for the area companyprised in a ward.
Aggrieved,.
289 of 1972.
What the appellant seeks is in substance, a right to give evidence to prove that the election of the election petitioner would have been void on account of companyrupt practices companymitted by him in the election, if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election.
Hence this appeal.
1 is number entitled to be declared to be duly elected candidate because he companymitted companyrupt practices.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The material facts bearing on this question may number be stated The elections to the Delhi Municipal Corporation were held on May 2, 1973.
In his written statement, the Returned Candidate raised some preliminary objections which have number been pressed before us and traversed the allegations in the election petition.
1 has obtained a majority of votes, the Respondent No.
893 of 1973.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. The principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal on certificate, is whether in an election petition under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for short, the Corporation Act , for getting an election declared void and for a further declaration that the petitioner himself had been duly elected, the returned candidate is entitled to plead and prove that the petitioner was guilty of companyrupt practice in the election in question, and was therefore number entitled to be declared as duly elected ?
Apart from getting the election of the returned candidate declared void, the election petitioner prayed that he be declared duly elected to the Municipal Corporation under S. 19 1 c of the Corporation Act.
The appellant secured 3974 valid votes as against 3882 valid votes obtained by Respondent 1.
Appellant, Benarsi Dass and Sumer Chand, Respondent 1 and others companytested the election from Ward No.
The District Judge held that the appellant was number entitled to plead and prove in reply to the election petition that the petitioner was also guilty of companyrupt practices.
He further pleaded under the caption Additional Pleas that since the petitioner was guilty of the companyrupt practices, particularised in the written statement he had become disentitled to be declared elected.
To impugn those orders of the District Judge, the appellant moved the High Court by a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
