Question

Like this

Answer 1

Answer:

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkk

Explanation:

Answer 2

1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) is directed against the judgment and order of Election Tribunal, presided over by Shri Syed Bahaud-din Ahmad, Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur. Ranchi, dated the 12th of February, 1963, by which he dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant under section 81 of the said Act.

1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) is directed against the judgment and order of Election Tribunal, presided over by Shri Syed Bahaud-din Ahmad, Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur. Ranchi, dated the 12th of February, 1963, by which he dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant under section 81 of the said Act.2. In the last general election the appellantand the two respondents were rival candidates for the Parliamentary seat from Lohardaga Parliamentary (Scheduled Tribes) Constituency. The appellant was the official candidate of the Congress party, the respondent No. 1 was the official candidate of the Swatantra party and the respondent No. 2 was the official candidate of the Jharkhand party. The result of the election was declared on the 2nd of March, 1962, declaring respondent No. 1 to have been duly elected. The appellant polled 41,804 votes, while respondent No. 1 polled 58,173 votes and respondent No. 2 polled 31,744 votes The appellant, therefore, filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 -- who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the respondent' -- and praying for a declaration that he was the duly elected candidate from Lohardaga Lok Sabha seat (Scheduled Tribes). It was also prayed that, if that be not possible, the entire election be declared as void.

1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) is directed against the judgment and order of Election Tribunal, presided over by Shri Syed Bahaud-din Ahmad, Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur. Ranchi, dated the 12th of February, 1963, by which he dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant under section 81 of the said Act.2. In the last general election the appellantand the two respondents were rival candidates for the Parliamentary seat from Lohardaga Parliamentary (Scheduled Tribes) Constituency. The appellant was the official candidate of the Congress party, the respondent No. 1 was the official candidate of the Swatantra party and the respondent No. 2 was the official candidate of the Jharkhand party. The result of the election was declared on the 2nd of March, 1962, declaring respondent No. 1 to have been duly elected. The appellant polled 41,804 votes, while respondent No. 1 polled 58,173 votes and respondent No. 2 polled 31,744 votes The appellant, therefore, filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 -- who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the respondent' -- and praying for a declaration that he was the duly elected candidate from Lohardaga Lok Sabha seat (Scheduled Tribes). It was also prayed that, if that be not possible, the entire election be declared as void.3. Before the Election Tribunal several grounds, were taken for establishing the invalidity of the election all of which were negatived by the Election Tribunal and the election petition was accordingly dismissed, Mr. Singh, appearing for the appellant, however, has pressed only three points in support of the appeal, (1) that the respondent was guilty of corrupt practices by publishing and distributing two pamphlets Exts 1 and I/a, inciting communal feeling, caste feeling and caste arid community hatred between classes and thereby exercising undue influence on the voters; (2) that he misled the voters. by making a representation that the symbol "cycle" which was the symbol of the respondent, was the symbol of the appellant; and (3) that the two respondents are Indian Christians and, as such, they were not entitled to contest the Parliamentary seat concerned as candidates for a seat particularly meant for the Scheduled Tribes. Counsel for the respondent has challenged the validity of all these points and has submitted that the appellant has entirely failed to establish anyone of them. It has therefore, to be considered as to how far the appellant has been able to substantiate his case on these three points.