The court expressed uncertainty about the applicability of a legal principle to the present case and ordered the matter to be reconsidered by a larger Bench.

ORDER :- The main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a copy of the affidavit supplied to the appellant together with the notice of the Election Petition is not a true copy inasmuch as it does not indicate the name and designation of the Notary nor does it bear the seal and stamp of the Notary. On this basis, it is contended that there is non-compliance of Section 81(3) because of which the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act. Sh. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision in Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khotwal (1996) 5 SCC 181: (1996 AIR SCW 1772), particularly the opinion of Justice Paripoornan therein read with that of Justice K. Ramaswamy. Sh. Sorabjee submits that even though from the supplementary opinion of Justice Bharucha, contained in para 17 of the report, identity on this point may not be explicit but there being no reservation in the opinion of Justice Bharucha on this point, this view is to be construed as the unanimous decision of the three-Judge Bench.

2. Having heard Sh. Sorabjee, we are not too sure that the principle indicated in the said decision can apply to the facts of the present case but certain wide observations, in the opinion of Justice Paripoornan and Justice K. Ramaswamy, may support the appellants contentions. In our opinion, the matter would, therefore, require re-consideration by a larger Bench to decide whether even in a case like the present one, the decision in Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khotwal (1996) 5 SCC 181 : (1996 AIR SCW 1772) can apply.

3. The papers be laid before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.

Order accordingly.