Dispute Case No. 1 of 1999 - Application filed by Shri H.D. Deve Gowda have filed individual affidavits from the members of the party in the dissolved 12th Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and several State Legislatures. These affidavits have been supplemented with a very large number of affidavits from various persons who claim to be members or office-bearers of one or the other body, board or committee in the organisational hierarchy of the party. The process of filing additional documentary evidence and the written submissions containing their claims and counter claims has continued till the evening of 6th August, 1999. In these written submissions, both the rival groups have, apart from reiterating their claims of majority, again reiterated their contentions and counter contentions with regard to the observance or breach of the provisions of the party constitution, and have attempted to justify the expulsions and counter expulsions of important leaders and functionaries of the party, from the offices held by them in the organisational wing of the party, including the President of the party. 14. Our anxiety to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, in view of the fast approaching general elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Sikkim, hardly needs to be stated. The first notification by the President in terms of Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, starting the electoral process in as many as ten States and six Union Territories is due to issue only four days hence, i.e. on 11th August, 1999. In the short time available, after the parties have filed their pleadings and documentary evidence, we have perused and examined these voluminous records. This has been a disturbing experience. On our record, there are affidavits from a large number of individuals who seem to have pledged their support to both the groups. Serious allegations have been made with regard to the veracity of these affidavits, not by one but by both the groups. No firm view can be formed on the basis of such disputed affidavits and controversial evidence, as the allegations, if established, may have far-reaching bearing on the value or weight that might be attached to the plethora of other affidavits brought on record by the parties. A further probe is, therefore, necessary before coming to any decisive finding. Whatever undisputed evidence remains on record shows that the party has split vertically and both the groups are more or less evenly poised. On the basis of such evidence, it cannot be straightaway said that one or the other group enjoys such overwhelming majority in the organisational and legislature wings of the party, that it may be recognised as ‘the Janata Dal’. 15. Another significant point to be taken note of is that there are a large number of office bearers of the party, at various levels, relevant to the determination of the dispute, whose present position is not known, as 335