Case: Saiyid Alimuddin Vs. Saeed Ahmad

2. Under the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 the Chairman of a Town Area Committee is elected directly by the electorates of the Town Area at an election held simultaneously with the general election of the members of the Committee. The election of the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Bhalaoda, District Meerut, was held onThe appellant and the respondent were the only contesting candidates. On counting of votes the appellant was found to have secured 1, 980 votes as against 1, 280 votes polled by the respondent. The appellant was accordingly declared to have been elected as the Chairman. On 111954, the present respondent presented an election petition under) of S.of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914, as amended, challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The present appellant contested that petition. He denied and refuted the various grounds on which his election was challenged.On the allegations made against the appellant the Tribunal held (i) that the appellant had got 19 votes recorded in the names of persons who were not present at Phalaoda at the time when the voting took place, (ii) that the appellant had procured by personation the vote in the name of one Srimati Hafizam who was dead at the time of the election and (iii) that the appellant had procured one Ramji Lal, M. L. A., a Harijan leader, to address a meeting of Harijans in favour of the appellants candidature wherein threats were held out to Harijans that if they did not vote for the appellant they would be ejected from their lands. In the result, the Tribunal held that the election of the appellant as Chairman was void and, consequently, the Tribunal set his election aside. Farther, the Tribunal by the same order declared the respondent to have been duly elected.3. Onthe appellant filed before this Court a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. Special leave was granted by this Court onlimited to ground of appeal No. (ix) of the petition, namely, "That in the circumstances of the present case the order of the Tribunal declaring the respondent to be duly, elected is illegal." In view of this limited nature of the leave the appellant has to accept the position that the three charges have been brought home to him and that his election has been properly set aside. The only point available to him is that the order of the Tribunal declaring the respondent to be duly elected was illegal.

Court's reasoning:
In the statement of case filed on behalf of the appellant, however, the grievance has not been formulated in the way it has been done before us. There, the grievance made was that the Tribunal could not declare the respondent as duly elected unless it found (a) that in fact the respondent had received a majority of the valid votes or (b) that but for the votes obtained by the appellant by corrupt or illegal practices the respondent would have obtained a majority of the valid votes. The objection as formulated there is clearly founded on principles which govern parliamentary elections under the Representation of the People Act and, the Rules framed thereunder. Those rules, however, did not govern the election in question which is governed by the special rule quoted above.The Tribunal found that the election of the appellant was invalid on account of very serious misconduct an his part, namely, that the appellant procured undue influence to be exercised on the electorates and there was impersonation of absent voters and of even a dead voter. Further, there was tampering with the Death Register which could only be in the interest of the appellant. These findings indicate that the appellant had committed corrupt practice under R. 49 and made himself liable to the penalties prescribed by R. 54, under which the Magistrate "may declare him to be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years from being an elector of town area or for being appointed to or retained in any office or place in the gift or disposal of the Committee." There was no. other candidate contesting the election besides the appellant and the respondent.In these circumstances the appellants election being set aside, the Tribunal adopted the first course that was open to it to take under R. 53(ii)(a) which evidently appeared to be the more appropriate course to take. Having regard to the language of the rule under which the Tribunal acted and the circumstances alluded to above we are not prepared to say that the Tribunal acted wrongly in exercise of its powers under the rule referred to above.