BELIRAM BHALAIK Vs. JAI BEHARILAL KHACHI
LAWS(SC)-1974-12-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on December 03,1974

BELIRAM BHALAIK Appellant
VERSUS
JAI BEHARILAL KHACHI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SITAL SINGH VS. GURDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1986-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMSHILA DEVI W/O SRI MANJI SINGH VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH [LAWS(PAT)-2010-2-156] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN CHAND PRASHAR VS. PREM KUMAR DHUMAL [LAWS(HPH)-1992-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
JANAKLALI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-7-217] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEP KUMAR RAI VS. RETURNING OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-2023-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANRAJ BOID VS. ESWAR CHARAN PATNAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1975-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHALADBHAI KHEMCHANDDAS PATEL AND NARMADABEN PATEL VS. ELECTION OFFICER OF VISNAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-2002-9-95] [REFERRED 8)]
RAJ KUMAR SAHI VS. VIBHA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
SURSATIYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP VS. PEER CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1992-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
BHABHI VS. SHEO GOVIND [LAWS(SC)-1975-4-39] [FOLLOWED]
NARAYANAN VS. MUHAMMED [LAWS(KER)-1981-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
BALKISHAN VS. ABHAYSINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KISHAN VS. ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM SUB JUDGE HISSAR [LAWS(P&H)-1999-7-1] [REFERRED]
RADHA KISHAN VS. ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM SUB JUDGE HISSAR [LAWS(P&H)-2000-1-18] [REFERRED]
MOHD SADIQ VS. RAFIQ HUSSAIN KHAN [LAWS(J&K)-1978-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
J RAGHAVA RAO VS. B CH GARATAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2002-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
K NAGESWARA RAO VS. V VENKATESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1992-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD MUSTAFA VS. U P ZILA DHIKARI PHOOLPUR AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA VS. UP. ZILADHIKARI (VIHIT PRADH1KARI) CHHATA (MATHURA) AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-301] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NANDAN SINGH VS. SHANKAR DAYAL SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1999-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
R NARAYANAN VS. S SEMMALAI [LAWS(SC)-1979-9-23] [FOLLOWED]
ASHA RAJ VS. RETURNING OFFICER PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-215] [REFERRED TO]
RANI MARSKOLE VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
DEOCHAND HAZARILAL JAIN VS. RAGHURAJSINGH DAULATSINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-1977-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PAL VS. RAM DASS MALANGER [LAWS(HPH)-2001-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
LAGUDU ANURADHA VS. GORREPOTU CHELLAYYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
IJIRANGBE JEME VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1987-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
SABIR S O JAMALUDDIN VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO 4 BULANDSHAHAR [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
BAHORAN LAL VS. GANESH PRASAD [LAWS(MPH)-1998-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDA SINGH VS. CHOUDHARY SHIV RAM VERMA [LAWS(SC)-1974-12-13] [FOLLOWED]
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT VS. ELECTION OFFICER OF VISNAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-2002-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI PANDEY VS. VIKRAMADITYA [LAWS(ALL)-1986-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
PALA RAM VS. MANGTU RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
NAKKA BHIKHYAMANA VS. AUROVINDO DHALI [LAWS(ORI)-1993-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
NOUSHAD VS. RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-2013-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
U K SHAMANNA VS. H G GOVINDE GOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-1987-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
FILOMENA GUILHERME FURTADO VS. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-1995-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
KHILARI VS. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SONBHADRA [LAWS(ALL)-1991-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAYAL PRABHAKAR VS. MAHENDRA BAUDH AND TWELVE [LAWS(MPH)-1992-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
INDULEKHA VS. PREETHA KUMARI [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANAND YADAV VS. VIJAY SINGH YADAV [LAWS(PAT)-2000-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
Chandrawati VS. Vijay Rajkumari [LAWS(MPH)-2002-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
DESHBANDHU KRUSHNARAO GULHANE VS. DINKAR KRUSHNARAO DESHMUKH [LAWS(BOM)-1980-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
RANVEER SINGH VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-1988-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. UP ZILADHIKARI MATHURA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-105] [REFERRED TO]
DEEP CHAND VS. JAYNARAYAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1977-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE NARAIN DHANUKA VS. JAIDEV PRASAD INDORIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
P C GEORGE VS. RETURNING OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA MADAN GOPALA NAYAK VS. VENKATESH NAIK AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2005-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
HAZZEE VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT/UP ZILA ADHIKARI [LAWS(ALL)-2002-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
BAL MUKUND ROY S/O LATE RAMDAS ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM- ELECTION OFFICER, JAMUI [LAWS(PAT)-2010-3-265] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA DEVI WIFE OF MAHENDRA MANDAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RUBI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
KULAMANI BEHERA VS. JAYANTA SAMAL [LAWS(ORI)-2004-2-19] [REFERRED TO;]
DEVKI NANDAN DUBEY VS. PURSHOTTAM SAHU [LAWS(MPH)-2018-12-139] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-144] [REFERRED TO]
V V MAHAJAN VS. S SAVARAN SINGH JOSH [LAWS(DLH)-1984-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KASHYAP VS. TULARAM [LAWS(CHH)-2013-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
B SHIVANNA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT [LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-73] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SARKARIA - (1.)ELECTION to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 6-Kumarsain Assembly Constituency was held according to the under-mentioned calendar : JUDGEMENT_417_4_1975Html1.htm
(2.)JAI Beharilal Khachi, Beliram Bhalaik and Kishori Lal as rival candidates contested the election from the aforesaid Constituency. The result of the poll was as below: JUDGEMENT_417_4_1975Html2.htm
Khachi was declared elected defeating Bhalaik by a margin of 118 votes.

Bhalaik filed a petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) calling in question the election of Khachi on the ground that the latter had committed several corrupt practices pleaded in the petition. The petitioner also alleged the commission of some irregularities and illegalities in the counting of votes and on that basis prayed that a recount be ordered. In the event of election of Khachi being set aside, the petitioner prayed for a further declaration that he had been duly elected.

(3.)THE learned Judge of the High Court found all the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.
Allegations, more or less of a general character, of a multitude of corrupt practices were made in the petition. We will notice only those, which were canvassed before us by Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, learned Counsel for the appellant. Since we agree with the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by the High Court, we will not re-appraise the evidence in detail. We will discuss only the broad salient features of the evidence adduced in the case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.