MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS application is filed by the first respondent in the Election petition No. 2 of 1995, under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act read with Section 151 of C. P. C. seeking to dismiss the Election Petition No. 2 of 1995 on the ground that the copy of the election petition accompanied by supporting affidavit in Form 25, prescribed under rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election rules, 1961 (for short the Rules ) served on him is without the attestation of the magistrate of First Class or a Notary or commissioner of Oaths and is not in accordance with the requirement contemplated under Section 83 (1 ) (c) of the representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE applicant Sri M. Ranga Reddy is the returned candidate from 212-Malakpet assembly Constituency for which election was held on 1-12-1994. He contested the election on Telugu Desam Party ticket. The respondent herein - Sri N. Indrasena Reddy unsuccessfully contested the said election on bharatiya Janata Party ticket. Apart from these two candidates, there were several other contestants including the candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress.

( 3 ) SRI N. Indrasena Reddy filed the election Petition No. 2 of 1995 seeking to declare the election of the returned candidate who is the first respondent in the election petition as void and sought a further declaration that he be declared as having been duly elected from 212-Malakpet Assembly constituency. The election petition is principally founded on the grounds of various corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate and his supporters with his knowledge and consent during the electioneering period. According to the election petitioner, as a result of various corrupt practices committed by the returned candidate, his electoral prospects were materially affected, as a result of which he lost the elections. But for the corrupt practices committed by the returned candidate, the election petitioner claimed that he would have won the election with considerable margin.

( 4 ) THE election petition was presented on 24-1-1995 i. e. , within the time stipulated. On appearance by the respondents and after settlement of issues, the election petition was listed for trial from 7-6-1996 onwards. However, the trial of the election petition could not be completed. By the time the present application No. 423 of 1997 which is filed on 27-3-1997 came up for consideration finally on 29-4-1997, on behalf of the election petitioner 18 witnesses were examined.

( 5 ) IT is contended by Sri C. V. Mohan reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-returned candidate that when specific allegations as to corrupt practices are made in the election petition against the returned candidate, the requirement contemplated under Section 83 (1) (c) of the r. P. Act has to be strictly complied with, by filing a separate sworn affidavit in Form 25 as required under Rule 94-A of the Rules, which has to be necessarily sworn before and attested either by a Magistrate of First class or a Notary or an Oath Commissioner. Learned Counsel further states that the mandatory requirement of this provision envisages that even the true copy of the election petition and the accompanying affidavit in Form 25 prepared as per rule 94-A, served on the returned candidate shall also be sworn before any one of the prescribed authorities, otherwise, the true copy supplied to the respondents in the election petition cannot be treated as a true copy. Any infirmity or lacunae in complying with the mandatory requirement as provided under Section 83 (1) (c) of the Act, the election petition has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The learned Counsel stated that though the election petition and the accompanying affidavit in Form 25 filed in the Court were duly verified and attested by the prescribed authority, but the true copy served on the returned candidate is not duly verifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document