LexOM PRABHA JAIN versus GIAN CHAND & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I959 Sardar Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab S. J(. Das j. 1959 April I. 516 SUP HEME COUB,T REPORTS [1959] Supp. contention that non-Sikhs can in any way influence the Board. We do not agree that Sikh Sarpanches and N aya Pradhans are in the service of Government or that their inclusion as members of the electorate violates the right of the Sikhs under Art. 26 (b) of the Constitution. It may not be quite irrelevant to point out here that the twelve members of the Interim Gurdwara Board, Patiala, plus thirty .five elected Sikhs from the Pepsu area will be a minority as against 132 elected mem- bers and twenty-five co-opted members of the Board. For the reasons given above, we hold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of violation of their fundamental right. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. OM Pl~ABHA JAIN v. GIAN CHAND & ANOTHER (JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and K. SuBBA RAO, JJ.) Election Dispute-Deposit for security for costs-Dismissal of Election Petition for non-compliance with rules therefor-Appeal- Maintainability-" Trial··. meaning of-Recitals in deposit receipt -"On whose behalf", meaning of-Representation of the People Act, r95r (5r of r9sr), ss. 90(3), 98, 99, rr6-A, rr7. Section II7 of the Representation of the People Act, r95r, provided: "The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of one thousand rupees has been made by him ...... in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as security for the costs of the petition." The respondent, who filed an election petition challenging the validity of the appellant's election, deposited the amount as required under s. II7 of the Act. In the deposit receipt, the \.VOrds "Secretary to the Election Commission " were put in as against the name of the person on whose behalf money was paid. The appellant contended that the receipt in this form showed that the money had been paid by the respondent acting for the (2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 517 Secretary to the Election Commission and not by him in favour of the latter, and that as the receipt was, therefore, not in terms of s. rr7, the election petition should be dismissed. The Tribu- nal accepted the appellant's contentions and dismissed the elec- tion petition under the provisions of s. 90(3) of the Act. Held, that the words "on whose behalf" in the deposit receipt, in the context, must mean "in whose favour" and that the receipt was in full compliance with s. n7 of the Act. Held, further, that the order passed by the Tribunal under the powers contained in s. 90(3) of the Act dismissing the election petition is an order under s. 98 and is appealable under s. n6A. The word "trial" in s. 98 of the Act mearts the entire pro- ceeding before the Tribunal from the reference to it by the Elec- tion Commission to the conclusion. Harihar Singh v. Singh Ganga Prasad, A.I1R. 1958 Pat. 287, disapproved. Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, .[1957] S.C.R. 370, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 12, 1958, of the P~njab High Court in First Appeal Order No. 183 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and order dated November 8, 1957, of Shri Harbaksh Singh, Member, Election Tribunal, Karnal, in Election Petition No. 249 of 1957. Purshottam Tricumdas, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. Ganpat Raf,, for respondent No. 1. Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2. 1959. April 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J.-In the 1957 General Elections the appellant was declared elected to the Punjab Legisla- tive Assembly. The respondent, Gian Chand, filed an election petition for a declaration that the appellant's election was void. The other respondent in this appeal, presumably another unsuccessful candidate at the election, had been made a party to the petition but he never appeared at any stage. For brevity we will refer to the respondent Gian Chand, as the respon- dent.. · I959 Om Prabha ] ain v. Gian Chand Sarkar ]. 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 19;9 The Election Tribunal before whom the petition Om Prabha Jain came _up for trial framed a number of issues and record- v. ed evidence. When the case was ready for argument, Gia" Chand the appellant made an application to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.