2010 Supreme(SC) 512

2010 (5) Supreme 513
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
K.K. Ramachandran Master — Appellant
versus
M.V. Sreyamakumar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 638 of 2007
Decided on : 6-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
While a petition that does not disclose material facts can be dismissed as one that does not disclose a cause of action, dismissal on the ground of deficiency or non-disclosure of particulars of corrupt practice may be justified only if the election petitioner does not despite an opportunity given by the Court provide the particulars and thereby cure the defect.

Headnote:Representation of People Act,1951-Sections 83, 123(5) -Election Petition filed by appellant challenging election of respondent No.1 in the Kerala State Legislative Assembly alleging that returned candidate had committed several corrupt practices that rendered his election liable to be set aside- The petition was contested by the elected candidate on ground election petition did not, state either material facts or give the necessary particulars so as to disclose a complete cause of action justifying a trial- High Court dismissed said petition –Appeal-Held averments made in the election petition sufficiently disclosed a cause of action- The averments set out material facts & gave sufficient particulars justified grant of an opportunity to the appellant to prove his allegations- Even if there was any deficiency in the particulars required to be furnished in terms of Section 83(b) of the Act High Court ought to have directed petitioner to disclose and provide the same with a view to preventing any miscarriage of justice on account of non-disclosure of same- So long the material facts had been stated, which were stated in the instant case, the absence of particulars, if any, could not justify dismissal of the petition by High Court-Section 123(5) makes hiring and securing of vehicles whether on payment or otherwise for the free conveyance of any elector to and from any polling station with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, a corrupt practice-Paragraph 25 and 26 of the election petition specifically alleged that first respondent, his election agent and other agents and workers had secured vehicles for transport of the voters to and from polling stations contrary to Section 123(5) of the Act- The averments made in the said paragraphs not only gave registration numbers but also the names of owners/drivers of vehicles used for providing free transport of voters of different booths indicated in said paragraphs- The averments made in the paragraphs 25 and 26 of the election petition constituted a statement of material facts required in terms of Section 83A of the Act-Dismissal of petition on ground that averments did not constitute material facts and did not give rise to a complete cause of action held not a correct appreciation of said averments- Impugned order of High Court set aside and matter remanded back to High Court for disposal of the election petition in accordance with law-Appeal allowed. (Paras 21 to 25)

       Facts of the Case :

       An Election Petition was filed by appellant herein in the instant case challenging election of respondent No.1 in the Kerala State Legislative Assembly alleging that returned candidate had committed several corrupt practices that rendered his election liable to be set aside. The petition was contested by the elected candidate on ground election petition did not, state either material facts or give the necessary particulars so as to disclose a complete cause of action justifying a trial. High Court dismissed said petition.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that averments made in the election petition sufficiently disclosed a cause of action. The averments set out material facts & gave sufficient particulars justified grant of an opportunity to the appellant to prove his allegations. Even if there was any deficiency in the particulars required to be furnished in terms of Section 83(b) of the Act High Court ought to have directed petitioner to disclose and provide the same with a view to preventing any miscarriage of justice on account of non-disclosure of same. So long the material facts had been stated, which were stated in the instant case, the absence of particulars,if any, could not justify dismissal of the petition by High Court. Section 123(5) makes hiring and securing of vehicles whether on payment or otherwise for the free conveyance of any elector to and from any polling station with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, a corrupt practice. Paragraph 25 and 26 of the election petition specifically alleged that first respondent, his election agent and other agents and workers had secured vehicles for transport of the voters to and fro polling stations contrary to Section 123(5) of the Act. The averments made in the said paragraphs not only gave registration numbers but also the names of owners/drivers of vehicles used for providing free transport of voters of different booths indicated in said paragraphs. The averments made in the paragraphs 25 and 26 of the election petition constituted a statement of material facts required in terms of Section 83A of the Act. Dismissal of petition on ground that averments did not constitute material facts and did not give rise to a complete cause of action held not a correct appreciation of said averments. Impugned order of High Court was set aside and matter was remanded back to High Court for disposal of the election petition in accordance with law. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.