TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omination papers but withdrew them. For the purpose of this appeal we are concerned only with the respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia. 3. The polling took place on 15 February, 1967. The result was declared on 21 February, 1967. The respondent polled 24272 votes. The petitioner obtained 20841 votes. The respondent won by a margin of 3434 votes. 4. After the election the Congress Party was reduced to a minority. The respondent Sukhadia who was the Chief Minister tendered his resignation. 5. On 13 March, 1967, the President's Rule was declared in Rajasthan, which was withdrawn after a period of 44 days on 26 April, 1967. Thereafter the respondent Sukhadia again became the Chief Minister. 6. The election petition was filed on 7 April, 1967. The respondent Sukhadia filed an application praying that certain allegations in the petition were vague and lacking in particulars required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and, therefore, the allegations should be struck off. The High Court ordered the petitioner to file a detailed reply giving full particulars in respect of each matter. On 29 May, 1967, the appellant furnished particulars. The High Court by orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raph 9 of the amended petition. The gist of the allegation is as follows: 13. The respondent Sukhadia, his agents and other persons with the consent of Sukhadia promised the voters of the Raigar Colony, Udaipur at a meeting that he would get them Pattas issued at a nominal rate of ₹ 1/-only for the construction of their houses and under this inducement he asked the Raigar voters to vote for him. Because of this inducement many Raigar voters voted for the respondent Sukhadia. The respondent Sukhadia by his undue influence as Chief Minister got issued an order No. 66/5077 dated 10 February, 1967, from the Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur to grant Pattas to Raigars of Thakker Bapa Colony for construction of houses at a nominal price of ₹ 1/-for each patta. The respondent Sukhadia thus committed corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act. Girdhari Lal, election agent of the respondent Sukhadia arranged a meeting on 5 February, 1967 at the Raigar Colony. About 100 persons gathered. The audience consisted of Harijans and Raigars. Prominent persons among these were Kalu Raigar, Shankar Harijan and Keshulal, the Secret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1/-. Thereafter there was demand for issue of Pattas on payment of ₹ 1/-. The Social Welfare Department wanted the order dated the 27 April, 1959 to be implemented and the City Improvement Committee insisted on payment of development charges amounting to ₹ 14,828.94. The attitude of the Government as represented by the Social Welfare Department was that Pattas should be issued to the inhabitants of the locality in terms of 27 April, 1959 order on payment of ₹ 1/-only per Patta. The Urban Improvement Trust and the City Improvement Committee were equally insistent on payment of development charges. 17. Ex. 44 being a letter dated 10 February, 1967, issued by the Director of Social Welfare Department to the District Welfare Officer was the sheet-anchor on which the appellant relied. Copy of that letter was sent to Keshulal, Secretary of the Grihya Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Thakker Bapa Colony. In that letter it was stated: ...it is submitted that there are directions from the Government on the application of Keshulal that action be taken without delay in granting pattas to the residents of that Raigar Colony, Udaipur, on payment at the rate of ₹ 1/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to any person whosoever with the object of directly or indirectly inducing (b) an elector to vote in an election. 20. The appellant's allegations were these. Girdhari Lal, election agent of respondent Sukhadia, arranged a meeting on 5 February, 1967 at Raigar Colony, 100 persons gathered. The audience consisted of Harijans and Raigars. The respondent Sukhadia at that meeting said that he was managing pattas of the lands allotted to Raigars and Harijans for ₹ 1/-each and requested them to vote for him. These particulars of the meeting were furnished by way of amendment. Apart from the baldness of allegations as to bargain for votes, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant was that of P.W. 4 Lakshmi Narain and P.W. 12 Kalu Ram. It is significant that Shankar Harijan and Keshulal, who were mentioned by the appellant as having been present at the meeting were not examined. Kalu Ram was a member elected to the Municipal Council, Udaipur on Jan Sangh ticket. Lakshmi Narain was neither a Harijan nor a Raigar. The appellant. alleged that the audience consisted of Harijans and Raigars. Lakshmi Narain said that when the respondent Sukhadia began addressing a meet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adia and no challenge was made. Roop Kumar P.W. 3 also spoke of the meeting at Sindhi Samaj at about 4.00 p.m. and he was not cross-examined. Nowhere in the election petition the appellant mentioned the time of the meeting at Raigar Colony on 5 February, 1967. In the tour programme of the respondent Sukhadia it will appear that he met the Kerala Samaj on 5 February, 1967 between 3-30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. at Vidhya Peeth. Between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m. he was at Sindhi Samaj and between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m. he met Gujrati Samaj near Fateh School. The respondent Sukhadia held a meeting of the Sindhi Samaj at Saletia Ground behind the Vidhya Peeth on 5 February, 1967 at 4.00 p.m. The police record contained in the file which was summoned at the instance of the appellant contained a copy of the tour programme of respondent Sukhadia which tallied with the tour programs produced by the respondent Sukhadia and orally deposed to by Sukhadia and witnesses on his behalf. 23. Ex. 109 was a copy of the cyclostyled address presented to the respondent Sukhadia on behalf of Sindhi Refugees at their meeting on 5 February, 1967. This is an additional ground to support the respondent Sukhadia's evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Police Lines were constructed a short link route to Tekri village was closed. Therefore, it was decided to construct an approach road to Tekri. When the thoroughfare through the Police Lines was abandoned in the year 1966, the Executive Engineer took a decision to upgrade a part of the road and to use tarred road to make a thoroughfare via village Tekri to give a by-pass to Police Lines. Tekri village was situated to the East of Police Lines at Udaipur. The new railway station was to the North-West of the Jail. The Jail was also to the North-West of the Police Lines. The proposed road was from the Rail-way Station to Tekri village and then beyond the Police Lines to a point to the Block Office from the North to the South. Tekri village was to the East of the proposed road. 28. In the original petition the appellant alleged that the Executive Engineer Chhail Behari Mathur canvassed votes to support respondent Sukhadia. In the amended petition the appellant alleged that Chhail Behari Mathur at the instance of the respondent Sukhadia passed orders for construction of roads. The appellant in his oral evidence said he had no personal knowledge and was indefinite as to which road his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial and Account Rules states that it is not the intention to prevent the officers from giving out to different contractors a number of contracts relating to one work even though such work may be estimated to cost more than the amount up to which they are empowered to accept tenders. The total cost of the road was approximately ₹ 20,000/-for material and labour. The 8th Running Bill was for ₹ 9,473.00 and the 9th Running Bill was for ₹ 1,025.00. Both the Running Bills were pursuant to Agreement No. 15 of 1966-67 and these Bills were passed in the months of April and May, 1967. There was a standing yearly contract to supply stones and ballast. The total labour cost for earth work, soling, consolidation of stone ballast was ₹ 7,840.75 as will appear from Ex. A/128 and Ex. A/130 (vouchers Nos. 63 and 44) and other vouchers. It is, therefore, correct to hold that the amount spent was within the limit and these were valid piece-work agreements and all Bills, Vouchers and Measurement Books indicate that there was no irregularity. 31. The High Court made some comments as to production of record for Tekri village. It stated that the record was produced after great ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 1967. That is proved by Ex. 67 log-book entry dated 12 April, 1967. Details of roadroller work given in Ex. 67 show that the engine worked on the road for about 3 1/2 days for pressing soling and consolidating ballast. 33. The relevant Financial and Accounts Rules Nos. 330, 351 and 369 indicate that the officers could give to different contractors a number of contracts relating to one work even though such work might be estimated to cost more than the amount up to which they are empowered to accept the tenders and a distinction is made between piece-work and contract work. Piece-work is that for which only a rate is agreed upon without reference to the total quantity to be done. Work below ₹ 2500/-in value is termed as petty-work. Exs. A/128 and Ex. A/130 would come in the category of petty-work. Petty-work did not require estimate nor tenders according to Rules 330 and 351 respectively. The Tekri road was constructed under special repairs programme. 34. The High Court held that the construction of the road at Tekri was in contravention of Section 72 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act. This point was not raised in the pleadings. Section 72 of the said Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have done work; and thirdly, work commenced immediately after the visit of respondent Sukhadia and it was completed before the polling date without estimates, without sanction and without funds. These three features were said in combination with the oral evidence of Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lal P.W. 28 to be full and complete evidence of the election bargain of respondent Sukhadia to obtain votes. He have earlier referred to the agreement for earth-work for construction of road at Tekri village. The work continued up to the month of May, 1967. The road had been planned as early as 1966. It is not correct to say that there was no sanction for the work. There was standing yearly contract, of supply of stones and ballast. Earth-work was done under different agreements. Measurement-books and vouchers have been produced and the total value of the work was calculated to cost ₹ 20,000/-. Approximately ₹ 18,000/-was spent. There were two piece-work agreements Ex. A/128 and Ex. A/130. In addition there were items of petty-work. Petty-work did not require any estimate. We have also referred to the relevant rules and held that there was no contravention. The High Court correctly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 10 February, 1967. There are various office notes on the Secretariat file being Exs. 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 and 266. In the month of February, 1967 the office notes were sent to the Municipal Local Self-Government. It appears that the Financial Commissioner did not at first accord his approval to the loan. The Financial Commissioner accorded sanction on 24 February, 1967 (Ex. 256). The office note of the Urban Improvement Trust on 6 March, 1967, proposed that the matter might be placed for administrative and technical sanction and also for the acceptance of the tender. Formal sanction Ex. A-35 was made on 31 March, 1967. In that sanction reference is made to the letter Ex. A-34 dated 19 January, 1967 and a telegram Ex. 7-A dated 10 February, 1967. This telegram was described by the High Court as faked because mere was then no sanction. The High Court was wrong in describing the telegram in that manner. The telegram Ex. 7-A dated 10 February, 1967 was sent by the Secretary to the Collector and Chairman of the Improvement Trust. Ex. 266 dated 10 February, 1967, is an office note to the effect that the Chairman, Town Planning had gone to Udaipur and was asked to discuss the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rust Resolution of 21 September, 1966 stated that money was being arranged for and would be forthcoming before the liability arises. Rule 375 (a) of the Public Works Department Financial and Accounts Rules inter-alia states that until an assurance has been received from the authority competent to provide funds work could be undertaken because such funds will be allotted before the liability matures. If the Urban Improvement Trust had to spend a sum over and above the budgeted provision in the course of the year a supplementary budget was to be passed. Again Rule 375 (b) it is stated that whether on ground of urgency or otherwise if an officer is required to carry out a work for which no appropriation exists, the officer is directed to intimate to the Accountant General when he is incurring a liability in which no appropriation has been made in the budget. Therefore, an officer incurring the expenditure will take immediate steps by addressing the appropriate competent authority to obtain orders either to stop work or regularise its execution. That is why, K.K. Joshi, Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust informed on 19 January, 1967 that he was starting the work in anticipation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... budget of the year. The Accounts Officer was careful in indicating that a telegram was not a formal order for sanction and something was yet to be done. The ultimate sanction was issued on 31 March, 1967. The Urban Improvement Trust on 15 April, 1967 paid the first running bill amounting to ₹ 52,466.60. 43. On the entire evidence it was apparent that there was urgency of the work. The Municipality felt the urgency. The resolution of the Municipality Ex. A-28 asked the Urban Improvement Trust to act forthwith in the matter of covering of the Nallah. When the scheme Ex. A-31 was sent to the Town Planning Department, copy was sent to the Chief Minister as well as the Law Minister. This was between the months of September and November, 1966. Reminder was sent in the month of January. 1967 to the Chief Minister. The respondent Sukhadia said that the scheme was brought to his notice. Sometime in the month of December, 1966 the respondent Sukhadia pointed out to the Chief Engineer, Health about the bad condition of the Nallah and expressed desire for improvement. It, therefore, follows that the respondent Sukhadia was shown the scheme once in the month of December, 1966 and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an offence within the meaning of Section 123(4) and Section 100(b) of the Representation of the People Act. The High Court held that the statement of fact contained in Ex. 8 that Bhanu Kumar Shastri encroached on government land and constructed his house at Shivaji Nagar was false and the respondent Sukhadia believed the statement to be false. The High Court also held that the statement related to the personal character of Bhanu Kumar Shastri but it was not reasonably calculated to prejudice 'the prospects of his election and the leaflet was not printed or distributed with the consent of the respondent Sukhadia or his election agent. Counsel for the appellant relied on the evidence of Bhagwati Lal Bhat and Girdhari Lal Sharma to contend that the respondent was responsible for the printing. Bhagwati Lal Bhat is R.W. 36 and Girdhari Lal Sharma is R.W. 2. Bhagwati Lal Bhat said that he was Secretary, District Congress Committee, Udaipur at the relevant time and he used to get leaflets printed for election propaganda. He also said that he got Ex. 8 printed at Krishna Printing Press and Madho Lal agent of Bhuleshwar Mina asked him to get the same printed. Girdhari Lal Sharma was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articular persons as distributors but after amendment, three persons, namely, Hanuman Prashad, Bhagwati Prashad Bhat and Isthiak Ahmed were mentioned as distributors. There is no evidence that Girdhari Lal distributed the leaflet. 51. In paragraph 15 of the petition, the appellant alleged that the respondent addressed meetings at Dholi Basri and Mpti Chohtta on 10 February, 1967 where the respondent orally made defamatory statement about the appellant making an encroachment upon the Government land. Narain Lal and Shanker Singh gave evidence on behalf of the appellant and said that the respondent in their presence made the statement that the appellant had constructed a house on Government land. The High Court did not accept the oral evidence on behalf of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the respondent denied that he held a meeting at Dholi Basri and Moti Chohtta on 10 February, 1967, there was mention of meetings at those places in the police report. The High Court held that the respondent might have contacted the people at the places mentioned but rejected the appellant's version that the respondent said that the appellant had encroached upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld in appropriate cases permit a party placed in such a position to support the judgment in his favour even upon grounds which were negatived in that judgment . 54. In the recent case in T.N. Angami v. Smt. Ravalu Reno M. Shaiza (Civil Appeal) No. 1125 of 1970) this Court in the judgment dated 21 January 1971 reiterated the views expressed in the case of Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel (supra). 55. There is an additional reason for allowing the respondent to support the judgment even on findings against the respondent, specially when it appears that the High Court has not taken into consideration the entire documentary and oral evidence in arriving at a finding. If the High Court has overlooked important and crucial documents or oral evidence, such evidence will justify this Court to support the contentions of the respondent that the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court are against clear and cogent proof of facts. this Court will, therefore, be justified in recording the correct findings on ample and abundant materials which have been overlooked and ignored by the High Court. In the present case, we have had occasion to deal with these aspects on the rival contentions an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... People Act are intended to preserve the purity of the election, but at the same time these provisions should not be subverted for the impure purposes of maligning candidates who happen to be in the Government on the eve of the election. The normal bonafide acts of parsons who happen to be Ministers have to be kept separate from abuse of the opportunities of power and resources which are not available to their opponents. 59. Under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, bribery is said to be a gift, offer or promise by a candidate of any gratification to any person with the object directly or indirectly of inducing an elector to vote at an election. The ingredients of bribery are, therefore, first gift or offer or promise of gratification to an elector, second, the gift or offer or promise of gratification is for the direct or indirect purpose of inducing an elector to vote. It was said on behalf of the respondent that if Ministers on the eve of the election render public or social service by redressing grievances of the public in relation to construction of roads or installation of water taps or closing of insanitary drains or pits, these acts should not be inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
