Dispute Case No. 1 of 1999 - Application filed by Shri H.D. Deve Gowda in judgement over the decision of the President, much less remove him from the post. He submitted that, by no stretch of imagination, it could be assumed that the PAC had the authority to remove the President who was elected by the National Council. 10. Shri Sanghi further stated that any meeting of the PAC could be convened only by the party President and the meeting convened by Shri Deve Gowda and his supporters was a fraud perpetrated on the party constitution, which the party had submitted under the provisions of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, at the time of its registration and which thus, attained statutory sanctity. Shri Sanghi, therefore, contended that the party members violating the provisions of the party constitution, should not be permitted to claim to represent the party. According to Shri Sanghi, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the principle of the test of numerical majority in Sadiq Ali Vs. Election Commission of India (AIR 1972 SC 187), the situation was different inasmuch as the said Section 29A was not in vogue then and a party was not required to submit its constitution to the Commission under any statutory provision. Shri Sanghi also seriously questioned the authenticity of many of the affidavits filed by Shri Deve Gowda and alleged them to the false. 11. Shri R.K.Anand stated that official documents relating to party affairs were in the custody of the other group and wanted a list of office bearers of the party to be furnished to him. The Commission directed the counsel of Shri Sharad Yadav to furnish to the other group, a copy of the said list. The Commission also granted time to both the groups up to 12 noon on 6th August, 1999, to file further individual affidavits and other documents in support of their respective claims. They were also directed to file written submissions by the aforesaid time. 12. Pursuant to the above direction of the Commission, both the groups filed their written submissions and also filed a large number of additional affidavits on 6th August, 1999. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the whole matter. The Commission notes with regret that, so close to the elections, an important political party which has been playing a significant role in the national polity and even guiding the fortunes of the country in the recent past has fragmented. The schism in the party seems to be almost vertical. As in their various applications and counter-replies so also in their oral submissions before the Commission at the hearing held on 3rd August, 1999, both the groups have claimed majority in the legislature and organisational wings of the party. To substantiate their respective claims of majority, both the groups 334