Corrupt practice under election law requires proof of electoral inducement; ordinary administrative action near polling is not enough.

A corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence requires clear proof of a gift, offer, or promise made to induce electoral support, and ordinary governmental action does not become corrupt merely because it occurs near an election. On the alleged pattas, road work, nallah covering, and water-tap installation, the materials showed pre-existing administrative or public-health action supported by records, not election inducement, and the oral evidence was rejected. The leaflet and alleged defamatory oral statements were also not proved to have been published or used by the respondent or his agent. No corrupt practice was established, and the election challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged promise and issuance of pattas to Raigar Colony amounted to bribery or undue influence under the election law; (ii) Whether the construction of the Tekri road amounted to a corrupt practice by way of election bargain; (iii) Whether the steps taken for covering the Baluchistan Colony nallah constituted a corrupt practice; (iv) Whether the alleged installation of public water-taps before polling amounted to corrupt practice; (v) Whether the impugned leaflet and oral statements amounted to publication or use of defamatory matter in the course of the election.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged promise and issuance of pattas to Raigar Colony amounted to bribery or undue influence under the election law.

Analysis: The alleged bargain for votes was not proved. The materials showed a long-standing governmental policy regarding pattas at nominal charge and the correspondence demonstrated that the matter had been pending for years before the election. The contemporaneous files and tour programme contradicted the claim of a special inducement at a meeting for electoral gain. The oral witnesses were disbelieved, and the alleged meeting itself was not established on the evidence.

Conclusion: The allegation failed and no corrupt practice was proved against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the construction of the Tekri road amounted to a corrupt practice by way of election bargain.

Analysis: The road work was shown to be part of a pre-existing public project undertaken under departmental arrangements, piece-work agreements, and recorded measurements. The documentary record showed sanction, execution, and expenditure in the ordinary course, and the evidence did not support any promise made to voters in exchange for support. The alleged oral testimony was rejected, and the activity was treated as normal administration rather than electoral inducement.

Conclusion: The allegation of corrupt practice in relation to the Tekri road was not established.

Issue (iii): Whether the steps taken for covering the Baluchistan Colony nallah constituted a corrupt practice.

Analysis: The scheme arose from municipal and public health concerns and had been initiated well before the election on the basis of recorded resolutions, correspondence, and administrative processing. The sequence of notes and sanctions showed official action in anticipation of and pursuit of sanction, not a sudden electoral largesse. The evidence did not establish that the respondent used his office to offer the work as a quid pro quo for votes.

Conclusion: No corrupt practice was made out in respect of the nallah covering work.

Issue (iv): Whether the alleged installation of public water-taps before polling amounted to corrupt practice.

Analysis: The record did not support the assertion that the respondent procured the installation of water-taps by abuse of official position for electoral advantage. The finding of the High Court that the documentary evidence did not justify such a conclusion was accepted.

Conclusion: The allegation concerning public water-taps failed.

Issue (v): Whether the impugned leaflet and oral statements amounted to publication or use of defamatory matter in the course of the election.

Analysis: The evidence did not prove that the respondent or his election agent caused the leaflet to be printed or distributed, or that they consented to its publication. The allegations of oral defamatory statements were also not accepted, since the supporting witnesses were disbelieved and the record did not establish the asserted election speeches in the manner alleged.

Conclusion: The allegations based on the leaflet and the oral statements were not proved.

Final Conclusion: The proved facts did not disclose any corrupt practice within the election law, and the challenge to the election therefore could not succeed. The dismissal of the election petition was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrupt practice of bribery requires proof of a gift, offer, or promise of gratification made with the object of inducing an elector to vote, and bona fide governmental action taken in the ordinary course of administration does not become bribery merely because it occurs close to an election in the absence of clear evidence of electoral inducement.

---