IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Omission of words true copy" above signatures of election petition on each page of copy of Election Petition is not such a deviation as to attract Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act.
2. Defect in election petition of the type envisaged under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act does not warrant dismissal of Election Petition under Section 86 of the Act in limine.

ORDER

Election to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Dhule Local Authority was held in December, 1997. Result of election was declared on 31-12-1997. Besides the appellant, respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were the contesting candidates. After the election, respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected. The appellant put in issue election of respondent No. 1 on various grounds by filing an election petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. We are not at this stage concerned with the grounds on which election of respondent No. 1 was challenged. After respondent No. 1 was served in the election petition, he filed his written statement resisting the election petition on merits. The returned candidate also filed an application on 22-9-1998 seeking dismissal of the election petition for "non-compliance of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act". After pleadings were complete, issues came to be framed. Issues No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were directed to be treated as preliminary issues. Those issues arose out of the application filed by the returned candidate seeking dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Those issues read thus:

"(6) Does the respondent No. 1 prove that the Election Petition filed by the petitioner is not signed and verified in accordance with the provisions of Section 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and, if not, is Election Petition No. 2/1998 liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 and 83 in accordance with the provisions of Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951?

(7) Whether does the respondent No. 1 prove that the copy of the petition received by him through the Court does not comply with the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951?

(8) Does the respondent No. 1 prove that the copy of the petition received by him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules also needs the same compliance as is contemplated under Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951?

(9) What is the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951?"

2. The learned Designated Judge answered the issues thus:

"In view of what has been observed above, this Court has to answer issue No. 6 as follows:

(A) The respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that the election petition filed by the petitioner is not signed and verified in accordance with the provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, so far as the copy of the election petition served on the respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is not strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act and hence, the election petition deserves to be dismissed on that count.

(B) Issue No. 7 has been completely proved by the respondent No. 1 by specifically pointing out that the election petition does not comply with the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act. Hence, Issue No. 7 is answered in the affirmative.

(C) So far as Issue No. 8 is concerned, the respondent No. 1 has proved that the copy of the election petition received by him in accordance with Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules also needs the same compliance as is contemplated under Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

(D) Hence, Issue No. 9 has to be answered to the effect that because of non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the election petition deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary issues with costs."

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

4. According to the learned Designated Judge, co