Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 1033
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Lombo Tayeng - Appellant
Versus
Muk Pertin - Respondent
Misc. Case No. 3170 of 2014 in El. Pet. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 21-11-2014
For the Petitioner: Mr, D. Mazumdar, Mr. RK. Tiwari, and Mr. R.J. Das.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Duttta, Mr. S. Bharali and Mr. M. Das.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 191(1)(a) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI - Rule 1 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 98(b) and 100(l)(c) - Election petition - Nomination of opposite party - Seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the opposite party - Nomination of opposite party as a candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from No. 39 Mebo Assembly Constituency was rejected by Returning Officer within whose jurisdiction the Assembly Constituency is situate on ground that he was holding an office of profit at time of scrutiny of nominations which is a disqualification under article 191(1)(a) of Constitution - Objection raised by applicant that opposite party was Central Government Counsel in Bench of Gauhati High Court and also Standing Counsel of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Bench of Gauhati High Court, thus holding an office of profit under Government of India - It is contended that interrogatories are unnecessary - Application has been filed only to delay proceedings - Core issue which would require adjudication in election petition is whether engagement of opposite party as Central Government Counsel would amount to holding of office of profit warranting rejection of his nomination - To decide this issue, particulars proposed to be sought for through interrogatories are unnecessary and arc in nature of fishing enquiry - Notwithstanding same opposite party has stated that he has no difficulty in providing answers to suggested interrogatories – Held, In addition learned senior counsel for applicant has referred to various provisions in CPC dealing with interrogatories and submitted that answers sought for from opposite party through proposed interrogatories would enable applicant to effectively cross-examine witnesses of opposite party thereby enabling him to put up his defence properly - Delivering of interrogatories and answers received in response thereto would infact shorten litigation and also save cost of litigation - It was observed that as a general rule interrogatories are to be allowed - It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve interest of justice - However, interrogatories have to be confined to facts which are relevant to issue involved - Though a broad prospective is required to be taken power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party - In light of above remaining interrogatories, i.e., interrogatories may be examined. Proposed interrogatory at SI. No. 1 seeks names of Central Government departments for whom opposite party had appeared as Central Government Counsel - Having noticed the core issue involved in election petition, Court is of view that proposed interrogatory at SI. No. 1 has relevance to issue involved - Interrogatories at SI. Nos. II, IV and V deal with raising and settlement of bills of opposite party as Central Government Counsel by the concerned departments of Central Government and whether he received the bill amounts - Broadly speaking said interrogatories - Disposes of miscellaneous case.
2. Applicant is the respondent/returned candidate in the related election petition whereas opposite party is the election petitioner.
3. This application has been filed by the applicant under order XI, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the opposite party.
4. Opposite party has filed the election petition for declaration that the election of the respondent from No. 39 Mebo (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Arunachal Pradesh is void under section 98(b) read with section 100(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Nomination of the opposite party as a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from the No. 39 Mebo Assembly Constituency was rejected by the Returning Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat within whose jurisdiction the Assembly Constituency is situate on the ground that he was holding an office of profit at the time of scrutiny of nominations, which is a disqualification under article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. Objection raised by the applicant that opposite party was the Central Government Counsel in the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court and also the Standing Counsel of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court, thus holding an office of profit under the Government of India, was upheld by the Returning Officer who, therefore, held the opposite party to be disqualified. Consequently, applicant was declared as the returned candidate. This has given rise to the related election petition.
5. In the application, applicant has sought for leave of the court to deliver the following interrogatories to the opposite party:
(I) Whether in terms of the election petitioner's appointment as the Central Government Counsel, did he appear on behalf of various Central Government Department and if yes, kindly provide the names of the said Department of the Central Government for whom he had appeared ?
(II) Whether the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel raised bills to the various Central Government Department for whom he took steps and if yes, kindly provide the name(s) of various Minis tries/Departments to whom the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel have raised bills?
(III) Whether the bills raised by the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel included his professional fees for appearance in the court, drafting, settling pleadings, giving opinion, etc., on behalf of the various Departments of the Central Government?
(IV) Whether the bills raised by the election petitioner were sanctioned by the appropriate authority prior to settling and/or paying the amounts raised in the bills by the election petitioner and if yes, kindly provide the name of the appropriate authority?
(V) Whether the bills raised by the election petitioner were settled/paid by the concerned Department(s) of the Central Government and the election petitioner duly received the same?
(VI) Kindly provide the names of the authorities in whose power and possession the bills/memos raised by the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel are?
(VII) Kindly inform as to how many Central Government Counsel(s) were appointed specifically to the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court?
(VIII) Kindly inform as to who in Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court used to accept notice in respect to the cases involving the Central Government?
(IX) If you as the Central Government Counsel used to accept notice in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court for cases involving Central Government, did you take permission from any authority prior to appearing in such cases and if so, kindly provide the name(s)?
6. It is state
