TIRATH SINGH versus BACHITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 15-09-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
457 
lant's whole enc!-eavour was to circumvent such an 
enquiry and oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction. 
In that 
she has failed, 
so she will pay the contesting rcspon-
dent' s costs throughout. 
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs all 
through. 
TIRATH SINGH 
ti. 
BACHITT AR SINGH AND OTHERS 
[S. R. DAs, ACTING C. J. and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J.] 
Election Dispute-Election petition-Contents alleged to be vague 
and wanting in 
particulars-Mainu1inability-Naming of 
persons 
for disqualification-Recommendation for exemption from disqualifi-
cation-Notice-Jurisdiction of the Tribunal-The Representation of 
the People Act (XLIII of 1951), ss. 83, 99(1)(a) proviso. 
Where the respondent in an election petition contended that 
the allegations in the election petition were vague and wanting in 
particulars, but did not call for any particulars which it was open to 
him to do and was not found to have been misled or in any way 
prejudiced in his defence, it \Vas not open to him to contend that 
the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the 
provisions of s. 83 of the Act. 
Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to s. 99 of the Representation 
of the People Act read together leave no scope for doubt that clause 
(a) contemplates notice only to such persons as were not parties to the 
election petition and it is, therefore, not obligatory on the Tribunal 
under cl. (a) to issue notices on such persons as were parties in order 
that it may name them for disqualification under sub-clause (ii) of s. 
99(l)(a) of the Act. Clause (b) to the proviso 
obviously has the 
effect of excluding such persons as have already had the opportunity 
of cross-examining ·witnesses, calling evidence and of being heard, 
which the clause seeks to afford. 
The Indian and the English Law on the matter arc substantially 
the same. 
Ke.rho Ram v. Hazura Singh, [1953] 8 Election Law Reports 
320, overruled. 
The jurisdiction that sub-clause (ii) of s. 99(1)(a) of the Act 
confers on the Tribunal for making recommendation for exemption 
11-83 S. C, India/59. 
1955 
Sw:lrda Kripalani 
v. 
Shri S. S. Dulat, 
I.C.S., Chairman 
4 the Ekction 
T ribunaJ, Delhi 
and others 
Bose]. 
1955 
<;tpkmb1r 15 
1955 
Tit-at/a SU.gh 
... 
Baehittar Singh 
and ol/urs 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
from disqualifications mentioned in ss. 141 to 143 is purely advisory. 
Where it omits to do so, aggrieved parties have access to the Election 
Commission which under s. 144 has the power to act suo motu. No 
person, be he a party or a stranger, has a right to be heard by the 
Tribunal on the question of such exemption and, therefore, no ques-
tion of any service of notice under the proviso in this regard 
can 
arise. 
Even supposing that the proviso requires notice on a party to 
the dection petition, the noti.:e to him of the election petition itself 
can be treated as a notice under the proviso. 
C1VIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 21 of 1955. 
Appeal under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution 
of India against the Judgment and Order dated the 
12th January 
1954 of the Pepsu High Court in Civil 
Misc. No. 182 of 1953. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, Veda 
Vyas and /agannath Kaushal, (Natmit Lal, with them), 
for the appellant. 
The respondents did not appear. 
1955. 
September 15. 
The Judgment 
of 
the 
Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J.-The appellant 
was a 
candidate for 
election to the Legislative Assembly of 
the State of PEPSU from the Dhuri Constituency, 
and 
having secured the largest number / of votes was 
declared duly elected. 
The first respondent who is 
one of the electors in the Constituency filed the peti-
tion out of which the present appeal arises, for setting 
aside the election on the grounds, . inter alia, 
(1) that 
the nomination of one 
Mali Singh had been wrongly 
rejected by the returning officer, and (2) that the ap-
pellant was guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery. 
The Tribunal held that both these grounds were made 
out, and accordingly set aside the election. It further 
recorded a finding in terms of section 99(1) (a) of the 
Representation of 
the People Act No. XLIII of 
1951 
that the appellant was proved to have committed the 
corrupt practice 
of bribery 
as mentioned 
in 
section 
123(1) of the Act. The Appellant thereupon filed in 
the High Court of Patiala and East 
Punjab 
States 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
459 
Union

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.