# BHANU KUMAR SHASTRI v. MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA & ORS - **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 522 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1971-01-22 - **Case number:** Election Petition No. 8 of 1967 - **Bench:** G. K. Mitter, A. N. Ray - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhanu-kumar-shastri-v-mohan-lal-sukhadia-ors-5181 - **Pages:** 24 ## Headnote The Rtpresenration of the People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 116A, 116C and 123( l)~If provisions of 0.42, r. 22 of Civil Procedure Code are '- G cedure_ applicable to the hearing and determination · of an appeal from the final order passed by a High Court in the exerdse of tis original jurisdiction and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules of the Court shall, as far as possible, apply in relation to such appeal. There are no rules of this Court, -and the provisions contained in 0.41, r. 22, C.P.C., are attracted with the result that the respondent may support the decision of the High Court even on any ground decided against him, without preferring an appeal. [542 B-0] H Ramanbhai Asht:.1bai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji, [1965] I S.C.R. 712 and T. N. Angami v. Smt. Ravalu alias Renu M. Shai:r.a, C.A. No. 1125/ 1970 dt_. 21.1.1971, followed. · A B c BHANU KUMAR V. MOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) ( 4) Ordinarily amelioration of grievances of the public is innocuous. and cannot be construed against a candidate who is a Minister. If, however, there is evidence to indicate that any candidate at the election abused his power and position as a Minister in the Government by utilising public revenues for conferring advantage or benefit on a particular group· of people for the purpose of .obtaining their votes, different considerations · will arise and· it may be held to be a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(1) of the Act. [544 D-FJ In the present case, in all the instances relied upon by the appellant the evidence showed that there were long standing public grievances and the Government had from time to time made suggestions and recommendations for redress of the grievances and amelioration of the condition of the people. It cannot be said that on the eve of election there was any sudden or spontaneous outburst of public activity in the shape of diverting money to win electors to the side of the first respondent by throwing baits or giving them any particular and specially favoured treatment. [544 G-H; 545 Al Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 102 and Om Prabha Jain· v. Abhash Chand, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 111, referred ## Text _Characters 0–39,997 of 63,806. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._ 522 BHANU KUMAR SHASTRI v. MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA & ORS. January 22, 1971 [G. K. MITTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] The Rtpresenration of the People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 116A, 116C and 123( l)~If provisions of 0.42, r. 22 of Civil Procedure Code are '- G cedure_ applicable to the hearing and determination · of an appeal from the final order passed by a High Court in the exerdse of tis original jurisdiction and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules of the Court shall, as far as possible, apply in relation to such appeal. There are no rules of this Court, -and the provisions contained in 0.41, r. 22, C.P.C., are attracted with the result that the respondent may support the decision of the High Court even on any ground decided against him, without preferring an appeal. [542 B-0] H Ramanbhai Asht:.1bai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji, [1965] I S.C.R. 712 and T. N. Angami v. Smt. Ravalu alias Renu M. Shai:r.a, C.A. No. 1125/ 1970 dt_. 21.1.1971, followed. · A B c BHANU KUMAR V. MOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) ( 4) Ordinarily amelioration of grievances of the public is innocuous. and cannot be construed against a candidate who is a Minister. If, however, there is evidence to indicate that any candidate at the election abused his power and position as a Minister in the Government by utilising public revenues for conferring advantage or benefit on a particular group· of people for the purpose of .obtaining their votes, different considerations · will arise and· it may be held to be a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(1) of the Act. [544 D-FJ In the present case, in all the instances relied upon by the appellant the evidence showed that there were long standing public grievances and the Government had from time to time made suggestions and recommendations for redress of the grievances and amelioration of the condition of the people. It cannot be said that on the eve of election there was any sudden or spontaneous outburst of public activity in the shape of diverting money to win electors to the side of the first respondent by throwing baits or giving them any particular and specially favoured treatment. [544 G-H; 545 Al Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 102 and Om Prabha Jain· v. Abhash Chand, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 111, referred to. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1515 of E F G 1968. Appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the PeopleAct, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 10, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No. 8 of 1967. A. S. Bobde, Guman Lal Lodha, J. S. Rastogi, Jagadisfr Pandya, M. L. Vaidya, D. V. Dani, S. S. Parekh, S. S. Khanduja and N. K. Shejwalkar, for the appellant. · S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, 1. L. Gobhil and K. Baldev· Mehta, for respondent No. 1. M. B. L. Bhargava, S. N. Bhargava and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondent No. 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 10 May, 1968, dismissing the Election Petition filed by the appellant against the respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia. The election of respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Udaipur City Assemblyc Constituency was challenged. The appellant contested 'the elecH tion en Jan Sangh ticket. The respondent contested on Congress ticket. The respondent was the Chief Minister of Rajasthan iat the time of the election. Respondent No. 2 Mohan Lal also contested the election but obtained only 1262 votes. Respondents 4-918 Sup. C.J./71 . 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [197!]3 S.C.R. Narendra Singh Lakheri and Girdhari Lal Sharma Nos. 3 and 4 respectively submitted their nomination papers but withdrew them. For the purpose of this appeal we are concerned only with the res- ,pondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia. The polling took place on 15 February, 1967. The result was declared on 21 February, 1967. The respondent polled 24272 votes. The petitioner obtained 20841 votes. The respondent won by a margin of 3434 votes. After the election the Congress 'Party was reduced to a· minority. The respondent Sukhadia who was the Chief Minister tenodered his resignation. On 13 March, 1967, the President's Rule was declared in Rajasthan, which was withdrawn after a.period of 44 days on 26 April, 1967. Thereafter the respondent Sukhadia again became .the Chief Minister. The election petition was filed on 7 April, 1967. The respon- ·dent Sukhadia filed an application praying that certain allegations 'in the petition were vague and lacking in particulars required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and, therefore, the allegations should be struck off. · The High Court ordered the petitioner to file a detaibd reply giving full particulars in respect of each matter. On 29 May, 1967, the appellant furnished particulars. The High Court by orders dated 3/5/6 July, 1967 allowed the appellant to incorporate the said pa~ticulars in the amended petition and further allowed the appellant to furnish more particulars in respect of other allegations of ~rrupt practices. On 19 . July, 1967, an amended Election Petition was filed incorporating the amendments allowed by the High Court. Thereafter written statements were filed and the parties filed applications under Rule 12 of the Election Rules for production of the documents. Issues were framed on 14 August, 1967. The appellant filed a '.finally amended petition on 13 November, 1967. The appellant examined 30 witnesses and the respondent ·sukhadia examined 46 witnesses. The High Court decided all the issues in favour of the respondent Sukhadia a!lll dismissed the Election Petition but left tile respondent to bear his own cost. In the present appeal. we are concerned only with issues 1Nos. 3(a) and 4(a) Issues Nos. 3 and 4 are as follows:- 3 (a) Are the allegations made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Election Petition correct ? • A B c D E F G ' ,_ B BHANU KUMAR v. MOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) 5 25 3 (b) If so, did the respondent No. 1 coipmit !)le corrupt practice specified in Section 123 ( 1) or Section 123(2) of the Representation of the Peopie Act, 1951? 4(a) Are the allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Election Petition correct? 4(b) If so, did the Respondent No. 1 commit corrupt practice specified in Section 123 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? C As to issue No. 3 based on par@.graphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Election Petition, allegations of corrupt practice of bribery and undue influence concerned with the construction of certain works of general public utility to the inhabitants of Udaipur like the covering of Baluchistan Colony Nallah, construction of i:oad at Tekri, installation of water-taps in Udaipur City and the grant: of D Pattas to. the inhabitants of the Raigar Colony. In the petition thr appellant made 7 4 allegations. At the trial 55 allegations were given up. In the present appeal the appellant pressed allegations firS'l abou.t Pattas in Raigar Colony; secondly, about roads in Tekri; thirdly, covering of Nallah in Baluchistan E Colony; fourthly, construction of water-taps; and fifthly, about Ex. 8-A as defamatory of the personal character and conduct of the appellant. The appeHant's ·case with regard to Raigar Colony is to be found in paragraph . 9 of the amended petition. · The gist of the F allegation is as fol!ows :- J'be respondent Sukhadia, his agents and other persons with the consent of Sukhadia promised the voters of the Raigar Colony, Udaipur at a meeting that he would get them Pattas issued at a nominal rate of Re. 1/- only for the construction .of their houses G and under this inducement he asked the Raigar voters to vote for him. Because of this inducement many Raigar voters voted for the respondent Sukhadia.. The respondent Sukhadia by his undue influence as Chief Minister got issued an order No. 66/5011 dated 10 February, 1967, from the Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur to grant Pattas to Raigars of Thakker Ba pa :U Colony for construction of houses at a nominal price of Re. 1/- for each patta. The respondent Sukhadia thus committed corrupt practice as defined under S. 123 (1) of the Representation of the People Act. Girdhari Lal, election agent of the respondent 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971]3 S.C.R. Sukhadia arranged a meeting on 5 February, 1967 at the Raigar A Colony. About 100 persons gathered. The audience consisted of Harijans and Raigars. Prominent persons among these were Kalu Raigar, Shankar Harijan and Keshulal, the Secretary of the Raigar Colony. At this meeting the respondent Sukhadia said that he was managing Pattas of the land to be allotted to them for Re. 1/- each and he requested them to vote for him. B The High Court held that it had not been proved that the respondent Sukhadia made a bargain with the people of Raigar Colony on 5 February, 1967, that if they promised to vote for him he would arrange for the grant of Pattas to them at a nominal charge of Re. 11- each Patta. c The respondent Sukliadia stated that the order dated 5 February, 1967 (Ex. 271) passed by him and the order dated IO February; 1967 (Ex. 44) passed by the Director of Social Wel- :fure were in furtherance of the policy of the State Government announced as early as 27 April, 1959 (Ex. A-99) and further clarified by a subsequent order dated 26 February, 1962 (Ex. D A-100). Neither in the original petition nor in the amended petition there was any mention of recovery of devefopment charges by the Urban Improvement Trust in connection with the issues of Pattas. Sukhadia's evidence was that the Urban Improvement Trust under the aforesaid orders of 1959 and 1962 were to issue Pattas after receiving the nominal charge of Re. 11per patta E from the inhabitants of the locality without insisting upon the recovery of development charges as condition precedent to the issue of Pattas. The correspondence which was tendered in connection with the Raigar C-0lony indicates that from the year 1955 up to the F. month of July, 1967, certain controversies were going on between the Grihya Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Thakker Bapa Colony on the one hand and the City Improvement Committee and the Urban Improvement Trust on the other. The City Improvement Committee which was the predecessor of the Urban Improvement Trust from the beginning took the stand that Pattas in respect G of the houses .in occupation of the original inhabitants of the locality could not be issued unless they agreed to pay the price of the land and the development charges incurred by the City Improvement Committee. The Samiti on the other hand was anxious to see that the Pattas were granted without having to pay development charges because the people were poor. In Ex. A-99 H dated 27 April, 1959, the State Government made an order laying down the conditions on which the Pattas of the houses could be issued on payment of the nominal price of Re. 1/-. Thereafter i;" B c D E F G H BHANU KUMAR v. MOHAN LAL (Ray, /.) 527 there was demand for issue of Pattas on payment of Rt;. 1/-. The Social Welfare Department wanted the order dated the 27 April, 1959 to be implemented and the City Improvement Committee in· sisted on payment of development charges amounting to Rs. 14,828.94. The attitude of the Government as represented by the Social Welfare Department was that Pattas should be issued to the inhabitants of the locality in terms of 27 April, 1959 order on payment of Re. 1/- only per Patta. The Urban Improvement Trust and the. City Improvement Committee were equally insistent on payment of development charges. Ex. 44 being a letter dated 10 February, 1967, issued by the Director of Social Welfare Department to the District Welfare Officer was the sheet-anchor on which the appellant relied. A copy of that letter was sent to Keshulal, Secretary of the Grihya Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Thakker Bapa Colony. In that letter it was stated: " ...... it is submitted that there are directions from ihe Government on tl)e application of Keshulal. . . . . . that action be taken without delay in granting pattas to the residents of that Raigar Colorly, Udaipur, on payment at the rate of Re. 11-." This letter dated 10 February, 1967 (Ex. 44) seems to have had origin in 1959 and the di:cussions in the year 1966 as will appear from Ex. 268 being an application dated 29 December, 1966, addressed by Keshulal as Secretary of the Colony to the responde{lt Sukhadia as Chief Minister. There is a noting on that application in the hands of the Chid Minister to the effect "Secretary Social Welfare Officer to discuss the question of subsidy of 52 of the colonies and Pattas." That noting was on 28 December, 1966. On 31 December, 1966 the Secretary wrote as follows : "Please speak immediately. D. S. (Deputy Secretary) Social Welfare." In this background it is unmistakable that the demand of Raigar Colony for Pattas was as old as a decade and the inhabitants of the colony saw the Chief Minister in December, 1966 and he asked the relevant department to look into the matter. Exs. 270 dated 21 January, 1967 and 271 dated 5 February, 1967 are office notes and order pursuant to the application sent by Keshulal in the month of December, 1966. The Director Social Welfare Department in Ex. 270 stated that ''Pattas were not granted because the development charges were not paid." /The Secretary, Social Welfare Department made a note on Ex. 270 that the Chief. Minister (Respondent Sukhadia) was going on tour on 24 January, 1967, therefore, there was no possibility of discussion in the near future. On 5 February, 1967, there is a noting by the Chief Minister on the file that the Raigar residents were ready to get Pattas on payment of Re. 11- and after getting the amount 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R. deposited action should be taken in getting the pattas granted to them and the Social Welfare Officer should be asked to pay personal attention to take action in the matter and other problems such as setting up industries, water arrangements etc. These documents show that Ex. 271 dated 5 February, 1967 was an office note on the file and did not have any independent existence. The Chief Minister was asked to give his directions on Keshulal's application in the month of December, 1966. The Director of Social Welfare, therefore, on 10 February, 1967 wrote Ex. 44 "about grant of Pattas to the residents of the colony." Under Section 123 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, bribery is mentioned as a corrupt practice and bribery is any gift offer promise by a candidate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of an7 gratification to any person whosoever with the object of directly or indirectly inducing (b) .............. an elector to vote in an election." The appellant's allegations were these. Girdhari Lal, election agent of respondent Sukhadia, arranged a meeting on 5 February, 1967 at Raigar Colony, 100 persons gathered. The audience consisted of Harijans and Raigars. The respondent Sukhadia at that meeting said that he was managing pattas of the lands allotted to Raigars and Harijans for Re. 1/ - each and requested them to vote for hir.:. These particulars of the meeting were furnished by way of amendment. Apart from the baldness of allegations as to bargain for votes, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant was that of P.W. 4 Lakshmi Narain and P.W. 12 Kalu Ram. It is significant that Shankar Harijan and Keshuial, who were mentioned by the appellant as having been present at the meeting were not examined. Kalu Ram was a member elected to• the Municipal Council, Udaipur on Jan Sangh ticket. Lakshmi Narain was neither a Harijan nor <1 Raigar. The appellant. alleged that the audience consisted of Harijans and Raigars. Lakshmi Narain said that when the respondent Sukhadia began addressing a meeting a Harijan and a Raigar are stated to have stood up and mentioned that the Urban Improvement Trust was not permitting them to build an upper storey on the ground that they !lad not got pattas and respondent Sukhadia is supposed to have said that he would get pattas prepared and asked them to vote. The question of building 'the second storey was nowhere to be found in the allegations in the petition. Kalu Ram said nothing about the alleged bargain for votes. On the contrary, Kalu Ram said that he did not remember to have heard any conversation and he did not state anything about pattas being prepared from Jaipur and being sent to Udaipur before the polling date, though Lakshmi Narain deposed to that effect. If B c D E F G H B D E F G H BHANU KUMAR V, :f,IOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) 529 the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur was the authority for issuing pattas it is unbelievable that the respondent though Chief Minister of the State would make a promise for getting the pattas prepared at Jaipur and send them to Udaipur. Lakshmi Narain said that he was taken by Kalu Ram to the appellant 5 or 6 months after the election. Th.e appellant then asked Lakshmi Narain whether parchas (leaflets) had been distributed. Lakshmi Narain is supposed to have showed a parcha Ex. 8-A whereupoD the ap])ellant asked Lakshmi Narain if the latter could give evidence in court about distribution of Ex. 8-A. Even at that time Lakshmi Narain did not utter a word about the meeting on 5 Feb1uary, 1967 and far less of any bargain by respond.ent Sukhadia for votes at the election. Lakshmi Narain was an interested witness because he brought Ex. 8-A of his own accord, though he was not summoned 'to produce any document in Court. Kaid Ram the other wHness admitted that as early as 1959, the Rajasthan Government passed an order that pattas be issued to the resid.ents of Raigar Colony on a payment of Re. 1/-. This. was merely implementing what the Government had decided in 1959. The respondent's office note .on 5 February, 1967, was nothing new and there was no temptation offered by him. The tour programme of the respondent Sukhadia was exhibited i.e. Ex. A-116. Between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00.p.m. on 5 February, 1967, respondent Sukhadia spoke at a meeting of Sindhi Samaj at 4.00 p.m. That statement of Sukhadia was put to him in crossexamination to be correct. Girdhari Lal, the agent of Sukhadia, also spoke of the correctness of the tour programme of Sukhadia and no challenge was made. Roop Kumar P.W. 3 also spoke of the meeting at Sindhi Samaj at about 4.00 p.m. and he was not cross-examined. Nowhere in the election petition the appellant mentioned the time of the meeting at.Raigar Colony on 5 February, 1967. In the tour programme of the respondent Sukhadia it will appear that he met the Kerala Samai on 5 February, 1967 between 3.30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. at Vidhya Peeth. Between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m. he was at Sindhi Samaj and between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m. he met Gujrati Samaj near Fateh School. The respondent Sukhadia held a meeting of the Sindhi Samai at Saletia Ground behind the Vidhya Peeth on 5 February, 1967 at 4.00 p.m. The police record contained in the file which was summoned' at the instance of the appellant contained a copy of the tour programme of respondent Sukhadia which tallied with the tour programmes produced by the respondent Sukhadia and orally deposed to by Sukhadia and witnesses on his behalf. Ex. 109 was a copy of the cyclostyled address presented to the respondent Sukhadia on behalf of Sindhi Refugees at their meeting on 5 February, 1967. This is an additional ground to :530: SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1971) 3 S.C.R. ;<;upport the respondent Sukhadia's evidence. The oral evidence -Of Lakshmi Narain and Kalu Ram is unworthy of belief. The docuμie.ntary evidence fortifies th~ oral evidence of resj>ondent S~adia that there was no meetmg of Raigars and Harijans at Uda1pur on 5 February, 1967. The assertion made by the appellant that the order dated 5 Feb.ruary, 1967 was passed by the respondent Sukhadia on the :stauonery of the Chief Minister is baseless. The original belies that case. On the contrary the order dated 5 February, 1967 is nothing but a noting by the Chief Minister on the file which had been ~tarted pu~suant to fre order of the Government in the year 1959 and occasioned more so because of the application made by Keshtilal in the month of December, 1966. The High Court rightly rejected the oral evidence of bargain and characterised the evidence on behalf of the appellant as being wholly "concocted and fabricated." ' Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent Sukhadia also made an order for remission of development charges. The documents relied on by the appellant do not support any such charge. This is a new case in this Court. There is no foundation for it in the pleadings. This case was not made in the High Court. Therefor.~, this case cannot be allowed to be made at this stage. The second corrupt practice on which the appellant relied is A B c D E to be found in paragraph 8 of the petition as a1ll'~nded. Broadly stated the appellant's allegations were that the respondent Sukhadia ordered Public Works Department (P.W.D.) to construct a road at Tekri though it was a municipal area and P.W'.D. had no jurisdiction: and further that the respondent held a meeting on 5 FebruF ary, 1967, and during his speech said that he was arranging for construction of roads and installation of water-taps and requested the people to vote for him. This part of the appellant's case concerns an area called Tekri. There was a new railway station and a yard was constructed that necessitated new road linking police lines to a place called Salumbar road junction. P.W.D. G undertook to construct a road and when constructed that woulq have made a thoroughfare through the Police Lines from the Railway Station to the Block Office. The police authorities objected. The Banjara Samiti which took up the cause complained about the obstruction by the police. Work was held up. This was in the year 1965-66. When the Police Lines were constructed a short H link route to Tekri village was closed: Therefore, it was decided io construct an approach road to Tekri. When the thoroughfare through 1 the Police Lines was abandoned in the year 1966, the A B .• c D E F G H BHANU KUMAR V. MOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) 531 Executive Engineer took a decision to upgrade a part of the road and to use tarred road to make a thoroughfare via village Tekri to give a by-pass to Police Lines. Tekri village was situated to the East of Police Lines at Udaipur. The new railway station was to the North-West of the Jail. The Jail was also to the NorthWest of the Police Lines. The proposed road was from the Railway Station to Tekri village and then beyond the Police Lines to a point to the Block Office from the North to the South. Tekri village was to the East of the proposed road. In the original petition the appellant alleged that the Executive Engineer Chhail Behari Mathur canvassed votes to support respondent Sukhadia. In the amended petition the appellant alleged that Chhail Beha!'i Mathur at thl: instance of the respondent Sukhadia passed orc!ers for construction of roads. The appellant in his oral evidence said he had no personal knowledge and was indefinite as to which road his allegation related but that it related to a road whi~h ran through Tekri village. Madan Lal, Chairman of the Municipality and a witness on behalf of the appellant could not point any road construction by the Municipality after 28 December, 1959, when Tekri~ was included in it. Two other witnesses Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lal P.W. 28 said that the road at Tekri was completed two or three days before the polling. The High Court disbelieved both of them. There are important exhibits as to Tekri road construction. These are Contractor's Agreement Ex.A/128 dated 10 February, 1967, Measurement Book Ex.A1129 and Running Bill Ex. 70, all for earth work. Ex. A1130 dated 1 April, 1967 and Ex. All31 are the Agreement :ind Measurement Book respectively and both are for soling. The work was described "special repairs to approach road to Tekri." On behalf of the appellant it was emphasized that the change was significant. Ex.A/125 was the Agreement dated 3 September 1965 for oonsmiction of road by Baniara Samiti in the year 1965 Ex. A/126 is a letter of complaint by the Banjara Samiti against the hindrance by the Police. These documents Al 125 and Al 126 both indicate that when it was intended to have a thoroughfare through the Police Line> to Jaisamand Board some criticism was made as to the name given-"Construction of Road connecting Police Lines to J aisamand Road" in the file of the year 1965 but when work commenced it was describe~ as "Special repairs approach ro~d to Tekri." In Ex. A/ 127 dated 10 April, 1967 bdng estimate for the road it will appear that who~n the short link to Tekri village disappeared in Police Lines it was intended to build "approach road to Tekri" which was shown on a plan Ex. 80. When the thoroughfare through the Police Lines was abandoned because of 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS\ [1971] 3 S.C.R. objection by the Police, it was decided to by-pass the Police A Lines and upgrade the entire road from the Railway Station to the Block Office. The name was amended as "road from railway crossing to join Salumber road junction via Tekri village to give by-pass to Police Lines." The plan Ex. 80 prows that. The construction, whatever the name of the road was, remained the same road. The name is, therefore, of no moment. B The High Court held that there was no tender and that the work was split to restrict the contract to the competence of the Assistant EnJljineer. Rule 369 of the Financial and Account Rules states that it is not the intention to prevent the officers from giving out to different contractors a number oficontracts relating to one. work even though such -work may be estimated to cost C more than the amount up to which they are empowered to accept tenders. The total cost of the road wa~ approximately Rs. 20,0001- for material and labour. The 8th Running Bill was for Rs. 9,473.00 and the 9th Running Bill was for Rs. l,025.00. Both the Running Bills were pursuant to Agreement No. 15 of 1966-67 and these Bills were passed in the months of April and D May, 196'7. Tuere was a standing yearly contract to supply stones and ballast. The total labour cost for earth work, soling, consolidation of stone ballast was Rs, 7,840.75 as will appear from Ex. A/128,and Ex. A/13(} (vouchers Nos. 63 and 44) and other vouchers. It is, therefore, correct to hold that the amounf spent was within the limit and these were valid pi.ece-work agreements E and all Bills, Vouchers and Measurement Books indicate that there was no irregularity. The High Court made some comments as to production of record for Tekri village. It stated that the record was produced after great delay. The criticism is not justified. The requisition for record was made on 15 November, 1967 and the record was sent up on 15 December, 1967. An application for summoning documents was made by the appellant on 12 Aug11,st, 1967 and an order was made on 14 August, 1967 that the appellant should re" quisition these from the Public Works Department and the appellant made the requisition on 15 November, 1967. On 8 September, 1967 the respondent had also made a requisition ferihe iile relating to Tekri. The Executive Engineer ·made a slight confusion between the two requisitions. In any event the -entire record was before the Court and none of the parties suffered from any non-production. The High Court held that Ex. Al 130 being the agreement for soling was entered into on l April, 1967 and was a fictitious document because soling was done on 14 February, 1967 and not after 1 April, 1967. It is also important to note that entry in F G H ' ' / A B c D E F G H BHANU KUMAR v. MOHAN LAL (Ra,v. J.) 533 log book Ex. 68 dated 14 February, 1967 speaks of soling and pressing by road roller over 300 feet in length on 14 February, 1967. The relevant vouchers show 1that 18275 cft. ballast was spread. The ballast was 12 feet wide and 4! inches deep. The total ·length of the road was 4000 feet upto Tekri village. Se- · condly, the relevant vouchers show that 16,722 cft. soling was laici. Soling was done .12 feet wide and six inches deep. That worked out a total road length of 2,287 feet. Thus soling was not done over 1,113 feet in length. Thirdly, earth ,wot~ according to the vouchers was 287 41 cft. of which 21050 cft. was carried away and rest of the excavated stuff was pressed. Some 1,281 feet long road length contained material which was excavated locally. Work started near the Jail to avoid the inconvenience to traffic on election day caused by the dug up gravel road. That is why Ex. 68 dated 14 February, 1967 is explicable as to soling for about 300 feet on that day and Ex. A/130 the agreement became effective as from 1 April, 1967. Therefore, the High Court wrongly held' that the date 1 April, 1967 on Ex. A/130 was fictitious because soling was done oil 14 February, 1967 as will appear from Ex. 68. The judgment totally overlooked that on 14 February, 1967 soling was pressed by road-roller to the extent of 300 feet. The total distance of the road from Jail to Tekri village was 3389 ft. Out.of this length 3000 ft. soling was pressed on 12 April, 1967. That is proved by Ex. 67 Jog-book entry dated 12 April, 1967.. Details of road. roller work given in Ex. 67 show that the eh~ne worked on the road for about 3! days for pressing soling and consolidating ballast. The relevant Financial and Accounts Rules Nos. 330, 351 and 369 indicate that the officers could give to different contractors a number of contracts relating to one work even though such work might be estimated to cost more than the · amount up to which they are empowered to accept the tenders and a distinc· tion is made between Jliece-work and contract work. Piece-work is that for which only a rate is agreed upon without reference t<>' the total quantity to be done. Work below Rs. 2500/- in value is termed as petty-work. Exs. A/128 and Ex. A/130 ,would come in the category of petty-work. Petty-work did not require .estimate nor tenders according to Rules 330 and 351 respcctl. vely. The Tekri road was constructed Ul\der special repairs programme. The High Court held that the construction of the road at Tekri was in contravention of section 72 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act. This point was not raised in the pleadings. Section 72 of the said Rajasthan Act speaks of restriction on improvement in certain areas after the coming into otieration in 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 J 3 S.C.R. any area of a master plan or notification of the sanction of a A scheme. The scheme is .not in evidence. The evidence about Hiran Nagri Scheme does not prove that Tekri road was constructed in contravention of any scheme. Hiran Nagri scheme Ex. 78 is divided into 14 sectors. Tekri does not fall in any 011e of them. It is in evidence that on 31 January, 1967 the Advisory Council met for 'Preparation of a master plan. Section 2 ( 1) ( i) B of the said Rajasthan Act·speaks of amenity as including a road and section 2(1) (vi) speaks of improvement meaning operations over or under land. A road cannot be an improvement and therefore section 72 of the Act may not apply. These matters appear to be beside the principal point for consideration as to whether there was any meeting and whether the respondent c Sukhadia told the voters who were mostly Gujars that if they did not -vote for th.e appellant then the Kachha road in their locality would never be metalled. The High Court held that there was no evidence that it was the respondent Sukhadia who got the work on Tekri road started by Chhail Behari Mathur. The High Court further held that there was no evidence of bargain for voting at the election. The witnesses Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lal P.W. 28 who were examined to prove that the respondent made a bargain with the people of Tekri village that they would vote for him and he would .get a road constructed in Tekri village were disbelieved by the High Court. The entire evidence 'has been examined by the High Court and there was no ei!dence of bargain. That find,- •. ~, ing is correct and we do not find any reason to take a contraJiY ' · view. The various records about the construction of Tekri road indicate that this was a long standing grievance. If a roller was used on the date of the election that should not be interpreted to mean that the Chief Minister was utilising his position to obtain votes. Such a view would suspend and paralyse normal activities of the State. We agree with the High Court that th~re was no corrupt practice. With regard to the construction work at Tekri; counsel for the appellant emphasized three features, namely, that this was not the respondent Sukhadia's portfolio; secondly, that the cons· !ruction work was in breach of law, that the Urban Improvement Trust should have done work; and thirdly. work commenced immediately after the visit of respondent Sukhadia and it was completed. before the polling date without estimates, without sanction and wihout funds. These three features were said in combination with the oral evidence of Phoola P.W. 25 and Madan Lal P.W. 28 to be full and complete evidence of the election bargain of respondent Sukhadia to obtain votes. He have earlier referred to the agreement for earth-work for construction of road at Tekri D E F G H A B c D E F G H BHANU KUMAR V. MOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) 5 35 village. The work continued up to the month of May, 1967 .. The road had been planned as early as 1966. It is not correct to say that there was no sanction for the work. There was standing yearly contract of supply of stones and ballast. Earth-work was done under different agreements. Measurement-books and vouchers have been produced and the total value of the work was calculated to cost R.s. 20,0001-. Approximately Rs. 18,000/ • was spent. There were two piece-work agreements .Ex. Al 128 and Ex. A/130. In addition there were items of petty-work. Petty-work did not .require any estimate. We have also referred to the relevant rules and held that there was no contravention. The High Court correctly rejected the evidence of Phoola and Madan Lal and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of bargain for election. The third corrupt practice alleged by the appellant was in connection with the covering of Nallah in Baluchistan Colony. The. appellant alleg.~d in paragraph 8 of the amended petition that the respondent Sukhadia, his election agent, other agents and. other persons with the consent of the respondent Sukhadia mis· used his position as Chief Minister and ordered the Public Works -Department to construct roads and Nallah inter alia at Ward No. 27 in Baluchistan Colony. The appellant alleged that respondent Sukhadia visited that colony and induced the voters to vote for him and in turn promised to get the construction of the· Nallah done in their colony. It will appear from Ex. A-31 dated 30 September, 1966 that the scheme for covering of Baluchistan Colony Nallah came into existence at the instance and because of the keen interest taken in the matter by the Health and Central Committee oi the Municipal Council, Udaipur. There was a resolution of the Sanitary and Health Committee dated 27 August, 1966 Ex. A-28 where it is recorded that unfortunate incidents took place at the Nal!ah because children fell into the Nalliih and cattle also fell in the Nallah and ther~ was insanitary' condition. There are many documents between the years I 966 and 1967, pointin!( about the unsatisfactory and unhygienic condition of the Nallah. In the month of December. 1966. the Urban Improvement Trust noticed that the Government had refused subsidy for the coverin!( of the Nallah and request for loan was made and proportionate contribution was expected to be made by the ~unicipal Council and the Irrigation Department. · The Chairman. Urban Improvement Trust. in Ex. A-34 dated 19 January .. 1967, wrote to the Secretary. Town Planning Depart: ment. mhmatm!( that the work of the Nallah was being started in anticipation of the Government _sanction. In Ex. 65 (252) dafed 30/31 January, 1967. the Secretary. Town Planning wrote (o 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ,.........._, [1971] 3 S.C.R. the Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust, that it would not be possible for the Town Planning Department to spare the Illi>lley but he would ask th.e Chief Engineer., Health and the, matter should be discussed with the Town Planning people. Th.e Chairman in his oral evidence explained that he was quit~ surprised to A see the letter. Ex. 7-A is a telegram dated IO February, 1967. There are various office notes on the Secretariat file being Exs. 253; 254, 255, 256, 257 and 266. In the month of February, 1967 the office notes were sent to the Municipal Local Self-Government. It appears that the Financial Commissioner did not at first accord his approval to the loan. The Financial Commissioner accorded sanction on 24 February, 1967 (Ex. 256). The office note of the Urban Improvement Trust on 6 ·March, 1967, c proposed that the matter might be placed for admmistrativ1; and· tecfmical sanction and also for the acceptance of, the tender. Formal sanction Ex. A-35 was made on 31 March, 1967. In that .sanction reference is made to the letter Ex. A-'34 dated 19 January, 1967 and a telegram Ex. 7-A dated 10 February, 1967. This telegram was described by the High Court as "faked" because there was then no sanction. The High Court was wrong B D in describing the telegram in that manner. The telegram Ex. 7-A dated 10 February, 1967 was sent by the Secretary to the Collector and Chairman of the Improvement Trust. Ex. 266 dated 10 'February, 1967, is an office note to the effect that the Chairman, Town Planning had gone to Udaipur and was asked to discuss the case regarding Nallah in Baluchistan Colony with the Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust, Ex. 253 dated 11 February, 1967 is another office note stating that recommendation for grant of loan was sent for approval to the Financial Commissioner. All these documents read in proper sequence would indicate that Ex.