Total non-compliance with the mandatory provision of S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is fatal to an election petition.

1. This is a petition filed under S.80 to 84 read with S.117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the 'Act') challenging the election of the respondent to the Lok Sabha from the Kozhikode Lok Sabha constituency in the election held on 19 31977. The main ground upon which the election held is sought to be avoided is the commission of certain corrupt practices alleged in the petition. The petition was duly signed and verified by the petitioner and it was also accompanied by the requisite affidavit. On acceptance of summons the respondent entered appearance and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that there is non-compliance with sub-section (3) of S.81 of the Act.

2. The respondent was served with two copies of the petition, one of which was produced along with the written statement. The contention raised by the respondent is that both the copies served on him do not contain the signature of the petitioner as enjoined by S.81 (3) of the Act. On a perusal of both the copies it is seen that the copies of the petition served on the respondent do not contain the signatures of the petitioner. The copy of the accompanying affidavit, however, is seen signed by the petitioner. The question is whether the omission to sign the two copies of the petition is fatal. Sub-section (3) of S.81 leads as follows:

"Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition."

It is clear that the sub-section contains two parts. The first part enjoins that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition. The second part lays down that every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. The first part apparently has been satisfied in this case. The second part, on the other hand, is not satisfied. The answer of the petitioner is that there is substantial compliance with law in as much as the copy of the affidavit affixed to the petition contains the signature of the petitioner. What an election petition should contain is laid down in S.83 of the Act, which reads as follows:

"83. Contents of petition. (1) An election petition

(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and

(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings;

Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shah also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition."

The affidavit filed along with the petition undoubtedly is in compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.83. The actual wording of the affidavit filed by the petitioner also shows that the affidavit relates merely to the allegations of corrupt practice contained in the petition. In other words, it cannot be said that the affidavit is a general affidavit in support of the petition. Moreover, a reading of S.81 and 83 would show that they relate to different aspects. S.81 relates to the procedure regarding presentation of election petitions and not contents. In this case there is no dispute regarding the contents of the petition, because as already referred to, the main petition