P.N.BHAGWATI - (1.)These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against two orders passed by N. G. Shelat J. in Election Petition No. 18 of 1967. The facts giving rise to these appeals are common and for the most part undisputed and they may be briefly stated as follows.
(2.)On 13th January 1967 the Governor of Gujarat issued a Notification under sec. 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon all Assembly Constituencies in the State of Gujarat to elect members to the Legislative Assembly. The dates for various stages of the election were thereafter fixed by the election Commission by a Notification issued under sec. 30 and a public notice was issued under sec. 31 by the Returning Officer inviting nominations of candidates for the election Nomination papers for the election from the Daskroi Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 68 were accordingly filed by nine candidates. But out of them seven withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time leaving a straight contest between the remaining two candidates namely respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The polling for the election took place on 15th February 1967 and on 22nd February 1967 the result of the polling was announced and the first respondent was declared elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Daskroi Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 68. The petitioner who was a person entitled to vote at the election and who was therefore an elector within the meaning of the Explanation to sec. 81 thereupon presented an Election Petition being Election Petition No. 18 of 1967 in this Court under sec. 81 seeking a declaration that the election of the first respondent was void on the grounds set out in the Election Petition. Several grounds were alleged in the petition and of them two were:- (I) that corrupt practice had been committed by the first respondent; and (2) that appeal was made by the first respondent to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion.
(3.)On the petition being presented to this Court it was referred to Divan J. who was the Judge to whom the hearing of the Election Petitions was then assigned by the Chief Justice and summons was directed to be issued to the respondents. There were three respondents to the petition:- one was the first respondent who was declared elected the other was the second respondent who was a candidate at the election but who had lost and the third was a candidate who was impleaded since allegations of corrupt practice were made against him. The second respondent filed his written statement on 30th May 1967 supporting the petition. The written statement of the first respondent was filed on 2nd June 1967 and in this written statement he joined issue with the petitioner in regard to the various allegations made in the petition. On the same day a written statement was also filed on behalf of the third respondent. After the pleadings were closed the petitioner took out a summons for directions and on the summons for directions various dates were fixed amongst which was the date 24th July 1967 which was fixed for the settlement of issues. It was at this stage that an impediment came in the smooth course of the petition and certain events took place which have a considerable bearing on the determination of the controversy between the parties.