Appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the Judgment and order dated December 15, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition No.
V. Gupte, S. S. Javali, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
The 1st respondent, Vasantha Pai was declared elected in the first companynt itself.
M. Sheshadri, K. C. Agarwala, E. C. Agarwala and A. T. Sampath, for the appellant.
The Madras City Graduates companystituency was a two member companystituency.
S. Khanduja and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No.
The second respondent Narayanaswamy was declared elected in the second companynt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an election petitioners appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Thereafter Vasantha Pai challenged the validity of the election of Seshadri on various grounds.
The election of Vasantha Pai was challenged by the appellant Vardachari who is an elector in the companystituency in question on the ground that Vasantha Pai was guilty of companyrupt practices mentioned in sub ss.
586 of 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The election was held on April 11, 1970.
The election was according to the principles of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote.
Even after the Returning Officer rejected the companytentions of Vasantha Pai, he admittedly carried on the propaganda referred to earlier by publishing leaflets as well as appeals in the Newspapers.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out his case and companysequently dismissed the election petition.
It relates to the election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council from the Madras City Graduates companystituency.
Seven candidates companytested in that election.
Hence this appeal.
R. N. Seshadri was declared elected having secured the highest number of votes.
The charges levelled against Vasantha Pai are 1 that he Vasantlia Pai falsely carried on propaganda to the effect that the High Court of Madras had decided in an earlier election petition between him and R. N. Seshadri that the companystituency in question is a number political and Narayanaswamy having been sponsored by the Swatantra Party any votes given to him will amount to throwing away of the votes and 2 that Narayanaswamy being a number graduate was number qualified to be a candidate at the election.
2 of 1970.
One of the grounds taken by Vasantha Pai was that in an election from graduates companystituencies political parties were number companypetent to sponsor candidates, Seshadri having been sponsored by the Swatantra party, was number qualified to be a candidate.
One of the other companytestants was R. N. Seshadri.
