S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

I.A. Nos. 13850/2009

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

I.A. Nos. 13851/2009 (U/S 81(3), 82 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951) in El. Pet. 20/2009

1. This order will dispose of the application filed by the Respondent (to the Election Petition), being I.A. No. 13851/2009.

2. The Petitioner challenges the election of the second Respondent to the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency on the ground that he, his election agents, and others connected with him had indulged in corrupt practices within the meaning of the expression, in the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections. It is alleged that the second Respondent blatantly flouted the mandate of law by failing to keep correct and full accounts of his expenditure, thus violating Sections 77(1) and 77(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereafter "the Act") which amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(6). It is alleged that the expenditure exceeded the statutory limit of ` 25,00,000/-(Rupees twenty five lakhs) permissible in election expenses and, therefore, amounts to corrupt practice, which renders the election result, returning the second Respondent to the said constituency void. The Petitioner has filed a large number of documents, which include copies of brochures etc., alleged to have been issued at the behest or by the second Respondent.

3. After notice was issued, the second Respondent entered appearance and filed an application, (I.A. No. 13851/2009), stating that the petition had to be rejected for diverse reasons, including the following:

(i) Not all pages and documents furnished to the second Respondent, along with copies of the petition, contained signatures of the Petitioner;

(ii) Many portions of the documents filed with the petition were missing;

(iii) Copies of several pages of annexures (to the petition) furnished to the second Respondent were dim or illegible;

(iv) The election petition was not properly verified;

(v) The verification clause in the copy furnished to the second Respondent did not contain signatures of the Petitioner.

4. The applicant/second Respondent argues that by virtue of Section 81(3) read with Section 86 of the Act the election petition is liable to be rejected. Learned Counsel argues that the mandate of law is that the pleadings and documents filed in the proceedings challenging the election of returned candidate, should scrupulously adhere to the requirements spelt-out. It is submitted that Section 81(3) requires that every election petition has to be accompanied by as many copies as there are Respondents and every copy has to be attested by the Petitioner under his signature, to be a "true copy" of the petition. Elaborating, the learned senior counsel for the second Respondent urged that a copy is deemed not to be one if it contains a dim or illegible annexures or pleadings or some parts are missing. It is submitted that more importantly, the election Petitioner was under an obligation to sign on every page of the petition filed before the Court, and ensure that such copies, with his signatures were furnished. It is urged that the application for rejection of the petition was filed on 23.10.2009, after which the election Petitioner sought to move for amendment of the election petition along with a complete set of petition and the annexures, copies of which took care of the inadequacies outlined in the previous application for rejection.

5. It was argued that underlining the public interest in ensuring expeditious trial and disposal of election petitions, the Supreme Court in Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram 1974 (4) SCC 237 had stated that the purpose of enclosing copies of election petition in a prescribed manner was to enable quick dispatch of the notice to the Respondents and as a corollary, speedy adjudication of the dispute. If such requirements were to be treated not as imperative but only as optional, the object of the enactment would be defeated. It was submitted in this context that even the ru