Back
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
Prasanna Kumar
Versus
G.M. Siddeshwar & Others
Misc.Cvl.386 & 1431 of 2010 in Election Petition No.2 of 2009
Date of Judgment : 24-02-2010
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 82(a): [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Parties to election petition - Held, Defeated/non-returned candidates cannot be arrayed as respondents in election petition, wherein the election petitioner does not claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Petition cannot be dismissed on ground of misjoinder of parties.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 83: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Election petition - Corrupt practice - Held, Material facts of corrupt practice would mean all basic facts constituting ingredients of particular corrupt practice, which the petitioner has to substantiate, before he can succeed on that charge. Failure to state even a single material fact would entail in dismissal of election petition.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 83 & C.P.C., Order 6, Rule 16: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Pleadings relating to corrupt practice - Held, Charges of corrupt practices have quasi criminal bearing. Sketchy, amorphous and vague statements are not sufficient to constitute corrupt practice. Paragraphs containing vague allegations are liable to be struck off.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 83 & Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 94A & C.P.C., Order 6, Rule 15(4): [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Affidavit accompanying election petition - Held, If the prescribed form and affidavit filed are compared, one would not find verbatim compliance; but petitioner’s affidavit is in substantial compliance with prescribed form. Petitioner has filed affidavit which combines in itself requirements of both Rule 94-A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Order 6, Rule 15(4) of C.P.C., Separate affidavit as required under Order 6, Rule 15(4) of C.P.C. cannot be insisted upon.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 83(1)(c): [D.V. Shylendar Kumar, J] Election petition - Verification of - Petition pleadings having been trifurcated into Part-I comprising facts, Part-II comprising grounds and Part-III consisting prayer - Verification as it stands and with reference to manner of presentation of petition and having trifurcated or separated petition to parts, sufficiently and in substantial manner complying with requirement of verification - Annexure to election petition furnished to respondent and remained pending with him for 34 days - Objection regarding non-verification raised by respondent after 34 days - Held, Objection is not tenable. Petition cannot be rejected.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 83(2): [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Election petition - Non-verification of compact disk - Held, It does not entail dismissal of petition. Compact disks are virtually in nature of annexure to annexure to election petition as such, Section 83(2) applies only to schedule or annexure which is an integral part of election petition and not to a document which is produced as evidence of averments of election petition.
(Misc.Cvl.386 of 2010 is filed by the respondent No.1 under section 81(3), 83 and 86 of the representation of people act, 1951 read with order VII Rule 7 of the C.P.C. to dismiss/reject the election petition in the interest of justice and equity.
Misc.Cvl.1431 of 2010 is filed by the respondent No.1 under order VI Rule 16 of the C.P.C., 1908 to strike out paragraph Nos.1 (III)(1) to (iv), II (2) to (17) of the election petition in the interest of justice and equity.)
ORDER ON MISC.CVL.NOS.386 AND 1431 OF 2010
The petitioner has challenged the validity of the election of the first respondent to the 15th Lok Sabha from 13 Davanagere Lok Sabha Constituency at the election held on 30.04.2009 and the result of the election declared on 16.05.2009. The respondent No.1 has filed Misc. Cvl. 386/2010 invoking Section 81(3), 83 and 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the said Act’) r/w Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for the dismissal/rejection of the election petition and Misc.Cvl.1431/2010 invoking Order VI Rule 16 of the C.P.C for striking out paragraph Nos.1(III) (i) to (iv), II(2) to (17) of the election petition.
2. Sri M.B. Naragund, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 complains of the non-compliance of the second part of Section 81(3) of the said Act which reads as follows:
“(3) …. every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition”.
He submits that the copies of the petition are merely signed by the petitioner and his advocate. There is no attestation whatsoever. Even at the end of the election petition also, there is no attestation by the petitioner as the true copy. He further submits that every page of the annexures to the election petition has got to be attested by the petitioner as ‘true copy’. But the same has not been done by the petitioner. Only at the end of each annexure, the petitioner has attested the concerned annexure as the true copy. He further submits that the petitioner has produced 4 compact disks as Annexure14 to the election petition. He complains of the breach of Section 83(2) of the said Act, which prescribes that any schedule or annexure to the election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. Neither the petitioner nor the Notary has attested the compact disks as the true copies. There is no certification by the concerned Returning Officer on the compact disks in question.
3. According to the learned counsel, every annexure referred to in the election petition and its supporting affidavit requires to be attested and certified by the concerned Notary. Notary has failed to put his signature and seal on every page of every annexure. None of the annexures are verified as required by law, so contends Sri Naragund.
4. The learned counsel submits that, as per Order VI Rule 15(4) of the C.P.C., the person verifying the pleadings shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. There is no verifying affidavit filed with the petition as required by law.
5. Nextly Sri Naragund submits that the petition suffers from the misjoinder of unnecessary parties. As per the provisions contained in Section 82(a) of the said Act, when the petitioner has not claimed a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, he ought not to have roped in these proceedings the respondent Nos.2 to 28.
6. Sri Naragund submits that as per the proviso to Section 83 of the said Act, the election has to be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of corrupt practice and the particulars thereof, where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice. As per Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the affidavit referred in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 shall be in Form No.25. The said Form No.25 requires specification of the name of the corrupt practice.
7. The learned counsel also take
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
