Judgment

DUTT, J:- This appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the election petition of the appellant.

2. The appellant is a voter in the Mala constitutency of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The election of the members of the Assembly was held on March 23,1987 and the first respondent, who was then the sitting Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, was declared elected from Mala constituency.

3. The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent to the Kerala Legislative Assembly on the ground of various corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the first respondent. In paragraphs 5(i) and 5(ii) of the election petition, the corrupt practice that was alleged by the appellant was to the effect that the second respondent, who was a candidate for the election, published a notice wherein it was declared that the second respondent was withdrawing from the contest and stated, inter alia, that it was to highlight the grievances of his community, namely, the Kudumbi Samudayam which is a backward community, that he had decided to contest the election, and that one of the demands of the community was that it should be included in the list of Scheduled Castes. Further, the second respondent stated in the notice that the Kerala Government under the leadership of the first respondent had decided to give favourable consideration in regard to his communitys demand for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the second respondent declared in the notice that for obtaining their rights, it had become necessary that the first respondent should win in the election and for that purpose he was withdrawing his candidature offering full support to the first respondent. It was alleged that the second respondent published the notice at the investigation and with the assistance and initiative and at the cost of the first respondent and his supporters. Such acts constituted corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the Act.

4. In paragraph 5(xvi), it is alleged that the first respondent also committed corrupt practice in the course of his election work by asking Government servants including Shri P. M. Shabul Hameed, Teacher, Government Upper Primary School, Kaduppassery, to lead processions in support of his candidature in the constituency. It was submitted by the appellant that he was prepared to prove the allegation by examining the said persons. A photograph of a procession was filed.

5. In paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition, the appellant inter alia stated as follows:-

"5(xi).................Besides at the instigation of the first respondent a video cassette called "Malayude Purogathi" has been used in the constituency. The persons who speak are one Shri Jose P. George, Government Pleader, Kerala High Court, 2. Shri Thomas Thottappally, Veterinary Doctor, Veterinary Polyclinic, Valiyaparambu. This is also a corrupt practice. The video cassette is produced herewith in a sealed cover."

6. The first respondent opposed the election petition by filing a written statement denying the allegations of corrupt practices. It was submitted by him that as the copies of the said notice, photograph and video cassette were not supplied to the first respondent along with the copy of the election petition, the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86(1) for non-compliance with section 81(3) of the Act.

7. The High Court came to the findings that the allegations in the election petition would really show that the said documents formed integral part of the election petition and, therefore, it was really necessary to serve copies of the same on the first respondent and overruled the contention of the appellant that as he had filed the documents and produced the video cassette in Court, the first respondent could very well take copies of the same and def