SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(AP) 155

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, VENKATESAM
N.P.Chengalraya Naidu - Appellant
Versus
G.N.Pattabhi Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-63

The requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not mandatory and the non-compliance with this requirement does not entail the dismissal of an election petition.

Headnote:

ELECTION PETITION - DISMISSAL - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 83 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT - WHETHER MANDATORY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - ELECTION TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, who was a candidate in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections held in February 1962, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices by the respondent, who was declared elected. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as it was not accompanied by an affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices, as required by the proviso to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition on this ground.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 83 was not mandatory and that the non-compliance with this requirement did not entail the dismissal of the election petition. The Court observed that the provisions of Section 83 were not included in Sections 85 and 90(3) of the Act, which empower the Election Commission and the Tribunal to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with certain provisions, and that this omission was deliberate. The Court also noted that the Legislature had amended Section 83 in 1956 to remove the penalty of dismissal for non-compliance with its provisions.

Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory? 2. Whether the non-compliance with the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 83 entails the dismissal of an election petition?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not mandatory. The Court observed that the provisions of Section 83 were not included in Sections 85 and 90(3) of the Act, which empower the Election Commission and the Tribunal to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with certain provisions, and that this omission was deliberate. The Court also noted that the Legislature had amended Section 83 in 1956 to remove the penalty of dismissal for non-compliance with its provisions. 2. The Court held that the non-compliance with the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 83 does not entail the dismissal of an election petition. The Court observed that the defect of not filing an affidavit can be subsequently remedied and does not warrant the dismissal of the election petition in limine.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the election petition, and directed the Tribunal to re-entertain the petition and dispose of it in accordance with law.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal, under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from an order made by the Election Tribunal, Chittoor, dismissing an election petition filed by the appellant.

( 2 ) IN February 1962, general elections were held for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The appellant and respondent were the contestants from the Vepanjeri constituency in the District of Chittoor. The poll was held in the various polling stations of the constituency on 19/02/1962. The total number of votes polled was 51,278. The respondent secured 25,131 votes and the appellant, 24,798. The invalid votes were 1,349. The Returning Officer declared the respondent to have been duly elected by a majority of 333 votes.

( 3 ) SHORTLY thereafter, on 6/04/1962, the appellant presented a petition to the Election Commission at New Delhi, in which he alleged that the respondent had committed several corrupt practices, and claimed a declaration that his election was void. The petition was, in due course, transmitted by the Election Commission to the Additional District Judge, Chittoor who has been designated as an Election Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed his written statement on September 27, 1962, denying the allegations made against him. In paragraph 3 of his written statement, he pleaded that the averments in the petition were vague and devoid of necessary particulars and it was therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. In paragraph 4, he raised the contention that the appellant was, in law, bound to file an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of corrupt practices referred to in the petition and that this requirement not having been complied with, the petition should be rejected.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal framed the necessary issues for trial. The first issue was as follows: "whether the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for any of the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the written statement?"

( 6 ) AS this issue raised a substantial question of law, the Tribunal posted the petition for hearing on that issue. Before the date fixed for the hearing of the petition, the appellant filed a rejoinder and also an application, I. A. No. 2 of 1962, requesting the Tribunal to receive an affidavit. The respondent filed a counter on 16/10/1962 opposing the petition. By its order dated 20/10/1962, the Tribunal held that the requirement of law laid down by the proviso to Section 83 of the Act not having been complied with, there was no valid representation of the election petition. In this view, the Tribunal dismissed the election petition under Section 90 (3) of the Act.

( 7 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the proviso to Section 83 made it obligatory on the part of the appellant, to file an affidavit in the prescribed form and that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of that proviso, rendered that petition ineffectual.

( 8 ) BEFORE considering the respective contentions of the parties, if is necessary to set out the material provisions of the Act, relevant to the matters canvassed before us.

( 9 ) PART VI of the Act deals with disputes regarding elections. Chapter I of this part is the definition chapter. Chapter II consists of six sections. Section 80, which occurs in this chapter, provides that: "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part. "

( 10 ) SECTION 81 provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the Election Commission by any candidate al such election of any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top