The principle of substantial compliance with the requirements of S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was applied, and the court found that the defects complained of were not such as to mislead the appellant, and there was substantial compliance with the requirements of S.81(3) of the Act.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated 18th September 1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala rejecting the application made by the appellant herein seeking dismissal of Election Petition No. 8 of 1996 on various grounds. The brief facts are:

2. The appellant (returned candidate) was elected to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly from Piravom Constituency No. 79. While the appellant had secured 51873 votes, respondent No.1 (election petitioner) had received 44165 votes. After the result of, the election was declared, the first respondent filed Election Petition No. 8 of 1996 challenging the election of the appellant-alleging that the election of the appellant stood vitiated by commission of various corrupt practice, as detailed in the Election Petition. The Election Petition was resisted by the appellant and on 29.7.1996 the appellant filed his written objections. Various objections were raised but for the purpose of this appeal we are concerned with the objection raised in Para.39 of the written objections to the effect that Annexure XV supplied to the appellant was, not a true copy of Annexure XV filed with the Election Petition and the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed on that score alone for noncompliance with the requirements of S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act') Respondent No. 4 of the Election Petition also raised a preliminary objection on 30th of July, 1996. That objection however, has no relevance for the present appeal. Respondent No.1 filed his reply to the written objections on 6.8.1996 in which, inter alia, he asserted in Para.15 that copy of Annexure XV served on the appellant was a "true copy" of Annexure XV filed with the Election Petition and that there was no failure on his pan to comply with S.81(3) of the Act.

3. On 6.8.1996, the appellant filed a petition C.M.P.No. 2903 of 1996, praying that the Election Petition be dismissed for noncompliance with the provisions of S.81(3) of the Act. The main objection raised in this petition also, centered around Annexure XV, report in the newspaper "Rashtra Deepika". Para.4 and 5 of C.M.P. No., 2903 of 1996 read thus:

"4. I have filed my written statement of objections to the Election Petition on 29/7/96. I have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act. S.83 clauses (A) and (b) contemplate that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of the materials and also set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice. So whenever there is an allegation of corrupt practice may be contained in a document and the election petition may refer to such document. But when such document should be supplied to the opposite party. It forms as integral part of the Election Petition.

5. In this case, the petitioner has produced Annexure XV-a daily newspaper "Rashtra Deepika" to prove due of the corrupt practices. Though a report is mentioned in Para.36 of the Election Petition a copy of the report was not served on me. Hence I verified the Original Petition and found that the averments in Para.36 of Original Petition and the report in Annexure XV are entirely different. Non supply for the report to me is fatal to the maintainability of the Election Petition as S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act provides for giving a true copy of the Election Petition to the respondent mandatorily. The copy served on this respondent does not tally with the original Election Petition submitted in the Court. Even the contents of para 36 of the Election Petition do not tally with the statements made in the news paper report in Rashtra Deepika filed by the petitioner with Election Petition as filed in court. As a consequence there is a noncompliance of the requirement provided in S.81(3) of the R.P.Act which entails dismissal of the Election Petition as mandated by S.86 of the R.P.Act".