Mandatory findings on corrupt and illegal practice in election petitions require remand when the tribunal omits statutory issues.

Where an election petition alleges corrupt or illegal practice, the Tribunal must record mandatory findings on the statutory issues raised; failure to decide whether the alleged helper acted as a candidate's agent or whether there was ratification, and whether election expenditure breached the relevant provision, is a jurisdictional omission requiring remand for fresh consideration. The objection to ballot papers attested by allegedly unauthorised persons failed because the Tribunal found no proof that those persons had done election work for the candidate or that the documents had been countersigned by them, so the challenge lacked substance and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Election Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the election law by not considering whether a major corrupt practice or an illegal practice had been committed; (ii) Whether the objection to ballot papers attested by persons said to be unauthorised was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Election Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the election law by not considering whether a major corrupt practice or an illegal practice had been committed.

Analysis: On the admitted facts, the person alleged to have assisted the election was both a Government servant and the president of a propaganda board supporting the candidate. The question whether, in law, he acted as an agent of the candidate, or whether the candidate ratified his acts, directly bore on whether section 123(8) was attracted. Independently, the expenditure on postage for election letters raised a further question whether section 125(1) was breached. Section 99 made it obligatory for the Tribunal to record findings on such matters when a charge of corrupt or illegal practice was made.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ought to have considered these questions, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and findings.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection to ballot papers attested by persons said to be unauthorised was sustainable.

Analysis: The objection failed because the Tribunal had found that the relevant persons did not do election work on behalf of the candidate, and there was no proof that the documents relied upon had in fact been countersigned by them. The challenge to the validity of those ballot papers therefore lacked substance.

Conclusion: The objection to the ballot papers was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent that the Tribunal was required to decide the unanswered statutory questions on corrupt and illegal practice, while the challenge to the ballot papers failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When an election petition raises charges of corrupt or illegal practice, the Tribunal must record the mandatory statutory findings on those issues, and failure to do so amounts to a jurisdictional omission warranting remand.

---