SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Gau) 316

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Aftab H.Saikia, J.
Chandan Kumar Sarkar -Appellant
Versus
Dipak Ch.Ruhidas -Respondent
Misc.Case No. 38 of 2001 in E.R No. 17 of 2001
Decided On : 31-07-2002

Advocates Appeared:
S.Sharma, R.Islam, A.N.Choudhary, A.B.Choudhary

The main legal point established in the judgment is that substantial compliance with the requirements of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Gauhati High Court Rules renders an election petition maintainable.

Headnote:

Election Petition - Maintainability - Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 81(1), Section 86(1) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules. The court found that the election petition was presented within the stipulated period and in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act and Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent challenged the maintainability of the election petition primarily on the grounds that it was not presented in accordance with Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and that the copies furnished did not bear the mandatory requirement of attestation under Section 81(3) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election petition was presented within the stipulated period and in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act and Rules, and therefore, it was maintainable.

Issues: The issues were the presentation of the election petition in accordance with the Act and Rules, and the attestation of the copies furnished to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election petition was presented within the stipulated period and in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act and Rules, thus rendering it maintainable.

Final Decision: The court rejected the Misc. case and held the election petition to be maintainable.

A.H.SAIKIA, J.—

The maintainability of the Election petition No. 17/2001 presented by the opposite party/Election petitioner has been challenged by the respondent/applicant in this Misc. Case primarily on two grounds:-

(a) That the instant election petition was not presented before this High Court in accordance with Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short the 'Act') read with Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules (for short the 'Rules') and

(b) That the copies furnished to the applicant/Respondent do not bear the mandatory requirement of attestation under his own signature of the O.P/Election Petitioner as required under Section 81(3) of the Act and accordingly the applicant has sought for summary dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act holding that the same to be not maintainable.

2. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. V. Hansaria and S. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/respondent and Mr. A.B. Choudhury the learned counsel for the opposite party/Election Petitioner.

3. On consideration of the claims and counter claim advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in this Misc. application, this Court is of the view that since the question of presentation of the Election Petition itself is a purely disputed question of fact, the same needs to be formally proved by taking evidences in order to arrive at a just and proper decision on these contentious issues for which both the parties have agreed.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court by order dated 7.2.2002 while directing the parties to take necessary steps for issuance of summons for enforcing the attendance of the witnesses they may like to examine in this case, has framed the following issue as preliminary issue for its decision on maintainability.

“Whether the election petition was presented by the election petitioner in person in accordance with Section 81(1) of the representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules and if not, whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act.”

5. Be it mentioned herein that the learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed and pursued the second ground as regards the attestation of the copies of the Election petition furnished to the applicant.

6. After framing such preliminary issue, as many as three witnesses have been examined by the Election petitioner/O.P. in order to prove the factum that election petition was presented by him in person for making the same maintainable when the applicant/respondent has not preferred to adduce any witness.

7. Before going to discuss and appreciate evidences of the witnesses, I would like to refer to the provisions of law laid down under Section 81(1) of the Act as well as Rule 1 of Chapter VIE A of the Rules are as follows :-

“81 .Presentation of petitions - (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section(l) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.

Chapter VIIIA Special Provisions relating to procedure in election petitions under the representation of the Peoples Act. 1951 As Amended by Act No.XLVII of l966.

1. An election petition under Section 80-A of the Representation of the Peoples Act may be presented duly verified in the Form prescribed under Section 82 and 83 of the said Act, before the stamp reporter of this Court with a Court fee of Rs.6.00 affixed thereon, with 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top