Back
Bombay High Court
SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Ashok Shankar Gholap - Appellant
Versus
Krishnarao H.Deshmukh - Respondent
Decided On : 09/06/1979
ELECTION PETITION - PRESENTATION - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH S.81(3) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - FILING OF COPIES OF THE ELECTION PETITION IN A WRONG DEPARTMENT OF THE HIGH COURT - WHETHER CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - INTERPRETATION OF S.81(3) - PURPOSE OF THE SECTION - RULES FRAMED BY THE HIGH COURT FOR PRESENTATION OF ELECTION PETITIONS - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES - CONSEQUENCES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly election, filed his nomination paper on 1-2-1978. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination on the ground that he had not proved that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste and had not deposited Rs. 250/- as required under S.34(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the rejection of his nomination. The Respondent No. 1 raised preliminary issues related to the presentation of the petition as required under S.81 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not substantially complied with the provisions of S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires an election petition to be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents mentioned in the petition. The petitioner had filed the petition on the last date for presentation, but had not filed the requisite number of copies along with the petition. The copies were filed in a wrong department of the High Court on the same day, but after the period of limitation for filing an election petition had expired.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with provisions of S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 2. Whether the High Court Rules can confer on the Prothonotary and Senior Master or the Master and Assistant Prothonotary any power to permit the petitioner to correct or remove defects under S.81(3) or S.83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 beyond the period of limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of S.81(3) is to ensure that copies of the election petition are immediately available for service on the respondents so that the hearing of the election petition is not unnecessarily delayed at the initial stage. However, the court also held that the Section need not be construed so literally as to require the copies to be filed along with the petition at the time of presentation. If the copies are given by the Petitioner on the same day or soon after the presentation of the election petition at the time of removal of objections, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has violated S.81(3) of the Act because the copies are supplied in such a case by the Petitioner within a reasonable time for service on the Respondents and his conduct does not cause any unreasonable delay in proceeding with the hearing of the election petition at the initial stage, provided, of course, the copies are given by the Petitioner within the period of limitation prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition on the ground that the petitioner had not presented the petition accompanied by the requisite number of copies as provided under S.81 Sub-Sec. (3) of the Act within the period of limitation.
2. In reply the Respondent No. 1 has, inter alia, raised certain preliminary issues, which by consent of the parties are being tried as preliminary issues. These issues relate to the presentation of petition as required under S.81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These issues are Issues Nos. 1 and 1-A, which are as follows :
(1) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with provisions of S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as stated in Para 1(a) of the written statement ?
(1-A) Whether the High Court Rules can confer on the Prothonotary and Senior Master or the Master and Assistant Prothonotary any power to permit the petitioner to correct or remove defects under S.81(3) or S.83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 beyond the period of limitation ?
The Respondent No. 1 had also raised two other preliminary issues being Issues Nos. 2 and 3 which are as follows :
(2) Whether the petition is signed in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure ? If not, whether the same is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of S.83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?
(3) Whether the annexure to the petition is signed and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure ? If not, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with S.83
(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?
These two issues are however not pressed by the Respondent No. 1
3. The last date for presenting an election petition in connection with the election in question was admittedly 13th Apr. 1978. The present petition was presented on 13-4-1978. There is an endorsement dated 14-4-1978 at the back of the petition made by the Master and Assistant Prothonotary, who is an Officer authorised under the Election Rules framed by this High Court for accepting election petitions. According to this endorsement the petition was not accompanied by four copies of the election petition. This objection appears to have been complied with on 14-4-1978, because there is an endorsement of the petitioner's Advocate to that effect on the back of the petition immediately after the endorsement of the Master and Assistant Prothonotary, Section 81, Sub-Sec. (3) of
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
