This order was passed on March 28, 1962, and the High Court then proceeded to deliver judgment in the main appeal on the same day and the order of the election tribunal dismissing the election petition was set aside, and the petition was remanded for disposal according to law.
He was supported in this by the appellant but the other two respondents objected to withdrawal and companytended that Satrughna Sahu had numberabsolute right to withdraw the appeal on the analogy of 0.
The appellant then made two applications for certificates to appeal to this Court, which were dismissed.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 28, 1962, of the Orissa High Court in Misc.
1, Satrughna Sahu.
603 of 1962.
Thereupon he filed two petitions for special leave before this Court, which were allowed, and two appeals resulted therefrom one against the judgment of the High Court in the matter of withdrawal application and the other in the matter of the main appeal.
It therefore dismissed the petition.
Then followed an election petition by respondent No.
Where an appeal has been preferred against an order made under clause b of section 98 or section 99, the High Court may, on sufficient cause being shown, stay operation of the order appealed from and in such a case the order shall be deemed never to have taken effect under sub section 1 of section 107, and a companyy of the stay order shall immediately be sent by the High Court to the Election Commission and the Speaker or Chairman as the case may be of the House of Parliament or of the State Legislature companycerned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Setalvad, Ranadeb Chaudhri, M. K. Banerjee, S.N. Andley and Rameshwer Nath, for the appellant.
112 of 1961.
Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
It was put up for companysideration on March 8, 1962, and the judgment in the main appeal, which had already been prepared for delivery, was therefore withheld pending the disposal of the withdrawal application.
To this election petition, the appellant as well as the other two candidates who had stood for election were made opposite parties.
The companytention on behalf of Satrughna Sahu was that he was entitled as of right to withdraw the appeal.
Appeal No.
The appellant was elected.
as if the appeal were an apreal from an original decree passed by a civil companyrt situated within the local limits Of its civil appellate jurisdiction Provided that where the High Court companysists of more than two judges every appeal under this Chapter shall be heard by a bench of number less than two judges.
When the election petition came to be heard an objection was raised before the tribunal that the petition was number in accordance with s. 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 43 of 1951 , hereinafter referred to as the Act , and that this defect was fatal to the petition in view of s. 90 3 thereof.
The appellant stood for election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Choudwar companystituency in the district of Cuttack.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Orissa High Court.
He was opposed by three persons who are the respondents before us.
March 26.
This objection was heard as a preliminary objection and the tribunal came to the companyclusion that as the petition was number framed in accordance with s. 82, the defect was fatal.
