accordingly the second respondent declared in the numberice that for ob taining their rights it had become necessary that the first respondent should win in the election and for that purpose he was withdrawing his candidature offering full support to the first respondent.
in paragraphs 5 i and 5 ii of the election petition the companyrupt practice that was alleged by the appellant was to the effect that the second respondent who was a candidate for the election published a numberice wherein it was declared that the second respondent was withdrawing from the companytest and stated inter alia that it was to highlight the grievances of his companymunity namely the kudumbi samudayam which is a backward companymunity that he had decided to companytest the election and that one of the demands of the companymunity was that it should be included in the list of scheduled castes.
the election of the members of the assembly was held on march 23 1987 and the first re spondent who was then the sitting chief minister of the state of kerala was declared elected from mala companystituen cy.
from the judgment and order dated 13.11.87 of the kerala high companyrt in election petition number 2 of 1987.
further the second respondent stated in the numberice that the kerala government under the leadership of the first respondent had decided to give favourable companysideration in regard to his companymunitys demand for inclusion in the list of scheduled castes.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal election number4030 of 1987.
it was alleged that the second re spondent published the numberice at the instigation and with the assistance and initiative and at the companyt of the first respondent and his supporters.
every election petition shall be accompa nied by as many companyies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such companyy shall be attested by the peti tioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
hence this appeal.
firoz and aseem mahrotra for the respondents.
the original pamphlet was attached to the election petition and was marked annex ure a. the election petitioner thereafter stated in the petition that the pamphlet formed part of the petition.
the appellant challenged the election of the first respondent to the kerala legislative assembly on the ground of various companyrupt practices alleged to have been companymitted by the first respondent.
nambiar dileep pillai m.a.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dutt j. this appeal under section 116 a of the repre sentation of the people act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the act is directed against the judgment of the kerala high companyrt dismissing the election petition of the appel lant.
chitale a.s.
the appellant is a voter in the mala companystituency of the kerala legislative assembly.
kunhikannan for the appellant.
in that case the appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of the first respondent on four grounds one of which was companyrupt prac tice inasmuch as the first respondent had appealed to reli gion through a pamphlet marked annexure a. in the body of the election petition a translation in english of the hindi pamphlet was incorporated.
s. poti and t.t.
