The provisions of section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are mandatory and the petitioner in an election petition is obliged to give "full particulars" of the corrupt practices alleged by him, including the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices, the date and place of commission of each such practice.

Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - Mandatory Provisions of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act - Particulars of Corrupt Practices - Vague and General Allegations - Dismissal of Petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a candidate in the Vasai constituency of Maharashtra, filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent, Mr. Hitendra Thakur, on the ground of corrupt practices. The respondent denied the allegations and contended that the petition was bad for not carrying out the mandatory provisions of section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petition did not contain the necessary particulars of corrupt practices as required by section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. The allegations were vague and general, and did not provide the names of the parties alleged to have committed the corrupt practices, the date and place of commission of each practice, or the amount of money involved.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition is bad for not carrying out the mandatory provisions of section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act as alleged in para 4 of the written statement, and if so, what is its effect? 2. Whether the particulars of the alleged corrupt practices are not given and the allegations made are vague and general, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable on this count? 3. Whether the allegation about bogus voting is vague and bald and cannot be subject matter of enquiry in this petition?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act is mandatory and that the petitioner is obliged to give "full particulars" of the corrupt practices alleged by him, including the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices, the date and place of commission of such corrupt practices. The court further held that the allegations in the petition were vague and general, and did not provide the necessary particulars required by section 83(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the petition was liable to be rejected summarily.
Final Decision: The court rejected the election petition under Order VI, Rule 16 C.P.C. read with Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. as also read with section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. In the circumstances of the case, there was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---This is an election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the respondent Mr. Hitendra Thakur, who is a returned candidate from Vasai Constituency, Thane District, Maharashtra. Though there were earlier three more respondents, who were respondents 1, 2 and 4, their names have been deleted as per the order passed by this Court on 4th December, 1995 and hence now there is only one respondent who is the returned candidate. After pleadings were completed, issues were framed on the request made on behalf of the respondent, Issues 1 to 3 are heard as preliminary issues. Heard the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for respondent.

2. The petitioner was one of the candidates in Vasai, No. 61 constituency in the State of Maharashtra. There were in all 14 candidates including the petitioner and respondent. The election was originally scheduled to be held on 12-2-1995, but it got postponed and ultimately the election was held on 26-2-1995. The results were declared on 12-3-1995 in which the respondent was declared elected by getting highest votes amongst the candidates. Being aggrieved by the election of the respondent as the duly elected candidate, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the election on the ground of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the respondent.

3. The respondent has filed a written statement denying all the allegations of corrupt practices. In addition to this he has alleged that the petition is bad for not carrying out the mandatory provisions of section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act. It is further alleged that the particulars of the alleged corrupt practices are not given and the allegations made are vague and general, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the allegations about corrupt practices are bald and vague and cannot be enquired into.

4. The issues framed in this case are as follows :---

1. Whether the petition is bad for not carrying out the mandatory provisions of section 83(1) of the Representation of People Act as alleged in para 4 of the written statement, and if so, what is its effect?

2. Whether the particulars of the alleged corrupt practices are not given and the allegations made are vague and general, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable on this count?

3. Whether the allegation about bogus voting is vague and bald and cannot be subject matter of enquiry in this petition?

4. Whether the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case and detained in custody for few days prior to election as alleged in the petition in order to prevent him from participating in the election process, approaching voters, arranging meetings and in order to create fear among the voters?

5. Whether the news about the arrest of the petitioner and his detention was unnecessarily published in the newspapers and the electronic media at the instance of the respondent No. 3 and this affected the polling prospects of the petitioner?

6. Whether the respondent No.3 with the connivance of the officers violated the Code of election conduct as alleged in the petition?

7. (a) Whether the respondent No. 3 distributed goggles amongst the voters as alleged in the petition?

(b) Whether the expenses incurred for the purchase and distribution of goggles is not accounted for in the statement of election expenditure furnished by the respondent No.1?

8. Whether respondent No.3 has indulged in getting bogus voters to cast their votes in election with the collusion of Government officers as alleged in para 6 of the petition?

9. Whether respondent No.3 created terror and panic among the voters during the election time as alleged in the petition and as a result the election was postponed, and if so, what is its effect on the election result?

10. What order."

As already stated issues Nos. 1 to 3 have been heard as preliminary issues. Hence, I proceed to record my findings on issues Nos. 1 to 3.

Issues N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis