2002 Supreme(SC) 1149

2002(8) Supreme 323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
M.B. Shah & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Mahender Pratap -Appellant
versus
Krishan Pal and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 551 of 2002
Decided on 22-11-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, G. Balaji and G.K. Bansal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Advocate, Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Bansal, Satpal Jain, Randhir S. Jain, Dhungainder Singh and Ms. Savita Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The plea of arbitrary rejection of his application for recounting raised in the appeal is contrary to the appellant s own pleadings and evidence and is thus, clearly an after thought. High Court rightly rejected his election petition.

Headnote:Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 83-Contents of Election Petition-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rules 63 and 56A read with Form 20-State Legislative Assembly Election-Application for recounting-Rejected on ground that it was made after declaration of result-Contention of appellant, it was not correct-Rejected by High Court-Appeal under Section 116A to Supreme Court -Whether application was made on valid grounds and at proper time and was arbitrarily rejected by returning officer? (No)-Appeal dismissed-Case law of election petition pleadings and evidence referred.

       Held : In this appeal, it has been sought to be projected that the application for recount was made in the permissible interval between the announcement of the result of counting and signing of result-sheet in Form 20. This plea raised in the appeal is contrary to the appellant s own pleadings and evidence and is thus, clearly, an after thought. We thus find that the petitioner s case is based on misleading facts. The least we can do is to dismiss his appeal and confirm the order of the High Court rejecting his election petition. (Para 19)

       Observed further : As seen from the decided cases mentioned above, in election petitions which are filed with prayer for recount of votes, the court has always insisted upon a high standard of proof of grounds as would impel the court to direct recount of votes and recheck the election results. It is only after the election petitioner is able to demonstrate before the court by leading satisfactory evidence that there was serious flaw in the counting procedure which had materially affected the result of election that the prayer for recount is generally allowed. In such a state of election law, the court legitimately expects the parties to approach it with genuine grievous on truthful facts. Where false facts are pleaded and false evidence is produced to mislead the court into interfering with the people s verdict of election, the misconduct of the parties to the election has to be viewed seriously. The court allows an election petition only on strict proof of one of the grounds prescribed in Section 100 of the Act. If the parties to the election petitions are allowed to take the court lightly even though attempts are skilfully made by them by false pleas and evidence to mislead the court, the whole judicial process would be misused by clever parties to their advantage and to the detriment of the interest of the electorate who are vitally interested in the result of election. This is a case in which despite the endorsement by the Returned Officer that application for recount was filed after results were declared, the election petitioner has tried to make out a point that it was filed prior to the declaration of the results. In Election petition, if the parties are found to have made incorrect statements in their pleadings, affidavits or depositions and there is thereby an intention on their part to mislead the court, appropriate deterrent action like dismissal of their cases with costs, prosecution for perjury or initiation of contempt proceedings should be taken by the court lest the judicial process would continue to be polluted and misused by undeserving parties who have no real grievance or cause for seeking aid of judicial forums. Such false cases not only contribute to the work-load of the court and kill its precious time but create hurdles in the ways of genuine litigants who sincerely need assistance of the court for obtaining justice. (Paras 20 to 23)

       Held finally : With the aforesaid observation, we dismiss this appeal and impose cost of Rupees twenty five thousand on the appellant. From the cost deposited, a sum of Rupees twenty thousand should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and the remaining sum of Rupees five thousand be paid to Respondent No. 1-the Returned Candidate. (Para 24)