2016 Supreme(SC) 248

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Ajay Arjun Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sharadendu Tiwari & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2697, 2699, 2700, 2701 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 33933 of 2014, 11096, 15361, 31051 of 2015)
Decided on : 15-03-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
One composite affidavit would comply Section 83(1) of the Act and Order VI, Rule 15(4), CPC.
High Court Rules cannot override or prevail over provisions of any law in force.
There will be no infirmity if the High Court returns a finding on an issue which was not under consideration in the earlier order.
If the affidavits were filed along with the petition but the Registrar did not affix his signature and seal thereon, election petitioner cannot be held responsible for it.
Question of proof of a fact which was never in issue does not arise much less the question of burden of proof.

Headnote:(a) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 83(1) r/w Rule 94A, Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1956 and Order VI, Rule 15(4), CPC – Election petition on ground of corrupt practices – Whether to be accompanied by one affidavit or two affidavits – Two affidavits not mandated, one composite affidavit would comply Section 83(1) of the Act and Order VI, Rule 15(4), CPC – Instantly, High Court not examining content and form of the affidavits filed along with the election petition and directing filing of Form 25 – Not proper. (Para 17, 18, 20)

       (2013) 4 SCC 776 – Relied upon

       (2012) 5 SCC 511 – Referred

       (b) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 80A(2) r/w Rule 13(2) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 and Article 225, Constitution of India – Rules 2008 made under Article 225 cannot override or prevail over provisions of any law in force – Section 80A(2) confers discretion on the ice of Chief Justice of the High Court to designate Bench of one or more Judges to hear election petitions – No infirmity in the Single Judge disposing the I.A. petition. (Para 31)

       (c) Code of Civil procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – High Court passing a vague order in regard to section 83(1), RP Act – Question whether one or two affidavits were filed was not directly in issue in that order – High Court later returning a categorical finding on the issue – No infirmity – Further, petitioner was not required to challenge the earlier order as it was in favour. (Para 37)

       (2013) 9 SCC 261 – Relied upon

       (d) High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 – Rule 6(4) – If the affidavits were filed along with the petition but the Registrar did not affix his signature and seal thereon, election petitioner cannot be held responsible for it. (Para 37)

       (e) Code of Civil procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – Objection of returned candidate confined to format and content of affidavit by election petitioner being not in conformity with Form 25 – Date of filing of the affidavits not in question – Returned candidate also accepting filing of the affidavits ‘along with’ the petition – Question of proof of a fact which was never in issue does not arise much less the question of burden of proof – Election petitioner filing subsequent affidavit by way of abundant caution – Cannot be held against him. (Para 39, 41)

       (1997) 9 SCC 31; AIR 1917 Cal. 546 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       General elections to the legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh took place in the year 2013. One Shri Ajay Arjun Singh was declared elected as a member of legislative assembly from 76 Churhat Assembly Constituency.

       Challenging the declaration of said Ajay Arjun Singh, one of the contesting candidates Sharadendu Tiwari filed an Election Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

       The RETURNED CANDIDATE filed I.A. invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC praying that the Election Petition be dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action which was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       One composite affidavit would comply Section 83(1) of the Act and Order VI, Rule 15(4), CPC.

       High Court Rules cannot override or prevail over provisions of any law in force.

       There will be no infirmity if the High Court returns a finding on an issue which was not under consideration in the earlier order.

       Result: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15361 of 2015 allowed.

       Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31051 of 2015 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 33933 of 2014 and 11096 of 2015 dismissed.