Bombay High Court
Kokate Baburao Narsingrao
Versus
Munde Gopinathrao Pandurang
Decided On:

Headnote:Sections 82 and 86(1)-Election petition-Allegations of corrupt practice-Allegations not containing particulars of corrupt practices in detail but being vague-Copies of petitioner supplied to respondents not true copies and verification clause found defective-Further Government servants as Returning Officer etc. made as respondents in petition not necessary parties and thus their names to be struck off-Held, petition liable to be dismissed.-A reading of Section 82 makes it clear that the contest in the election is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election. All others arc excluded. Concept of "proper parties" is and must remain alien to the election dispute under the Act. However, if a person is found guilty of corrupt practice after evidence has been recorded, it is open to the Court to issue a notice to the person not a party to the proceeding to show-cause why he should not be named. A combined reading of this provision in unmistakable terms suggests that only a candidate is to be made a party respondent to be election petition.

       A person who was not a candidate to the election in dispute and who is said to have persuaded a candidate to withdraw from contest, cannot be impleaded as a party respondent to the election petition.

       After perusal of the true copies which are filed by the respondent No. 1 and other respondents, it is observed that verification clause (A) and (6) remained incomplete and no numbers or letters of these paragraphs are mentioned and thus in both these clauses blank portion remained as it is. Similarly, in verification clause, the last sentence, solemnly declared at Aurangabad on this ... day of April 1995 (date is not mentioned) remained incomplete. In all these copies of the election petition below the verification there is no endorsement to the effect, before whom it was sworn, who verified it on oath, the statement made by the petitioner in the election petition and the office of notary, oath officer, etc. with his stamp and seal, Even though it is submitted by Shri S petitioner that the copies of election petition which were presented by the petitioner along with the petition for service on respective respondents were completed in all respects, in view of the position stated above, the argument cannot be accepted and thus those cannot be treated as true copies.

       For Citation : 1999 MCR 244 (Bom)