9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of Election Petition 2. Employment of Government Servants in Election Campaign 3. Employment of Additional Persons Beyond Permissible Limit Detailed Analysis: 1. Amendment of Election Petition: The primary issue revolved around whether the Election Tribunal had the authority to permit amendments to the election petition, specifically to include new instances of corrupt practices. The appellants contested that the Tribunal lacked this power under Section 83(3) of the Representation of the People Act, arguing that the amendment introduced new charges rather than merely providing particulars of existing charges. The court observed that Section 83(3) allows the Tribunal to amend particulars in a list to ensure a fair and effectual trial, and this power extends to allowing fresh instances of charges if they relate to a charge already contained in the petition. The court concluded that the Tribunal has the authority to allow such amendments under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, provided the amendments do not introduce new grounds or charges that would make the petition a new one in substance. 2. Employment of Government Servants in Election Campaign: The Tribunal had found that the appellants obtained the assistance of four village officers (Mukhias) in furtherance of their election prospects, which constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(8) of the Act. The appellants argued that this charge was not originally pleaded in the petition and was introduced only by an amendment, which they claimed the Tribunal had no power to allow. The court examined the allegations in the original petition and found them to be vague and not amounting to a clear charge under Section 123(8). The court emphasized that charges of corrupt practices must be clear and precise and held that the amendment introduced new matters, thus altering the character of the petition substantially. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's finding on this ground. 3. Employment of Additional Persons Beyond Permissible Limit: The Tribunal had also found that the first appellant employed two additional persons, Ganga Prasad and Viswanath Pande, for payment in connection with the election, thereby exceeding the number of persons permitted under Rule 118 read with Schedule VI, constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Act. The appellants contended that these individuals were not employed but were contracted for specific tasks. The court noted that whether a person is an employee is a question of fact and found that there was no evidence to support the Tribunal's finding that Ganga Prasad and Viswanath Pande were employed by the first appellant. The court highlighted the distinction between a contract for services and a contract of service and concluded that the Tribunal's finding was based on no evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the election petition filed by the respondent. The court held that the Tribunal had no power to permit the amendment that introduced new charges and that there was no evidence to support the finding of employment of additional persons beyond the permissible limit. The election of the appellants was thus upheld.
|
