Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Jagat Narayan
MOHAN RAJ - Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA KUMAR TAPARIA - Respondent
Election Petn. 13 Of 1967
Decided On : 10/10/1967
ELECTION PETITION - DISMISSAL - NON-JOINDER OF CANDIDATE - MANDATORY PROVISION - CORRUPT PRACTICE - ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ELECTION AGENT - SUFFICIENCY OF PARTICULARS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 82(B), 83(1)(B), 86(1), 123(2), 123(6), 123(7)(F) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
An election petition was filed challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the Lok Sabha from the Pali Parliamentary Constituency. The petition was filed by one Mohan Raj, an elector to the Constituency. The election was challenged under Section 100 (1) (b) on the ground that respondent No. 1, his election agent and some other persons with his consent committed various corrupt practices defined under Section 123.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) as Shri R. D. Periwal, who was the election agent of the returned candidate and a candidate at the election, was not joined as a respondent to the petition. The court also found that the allegations of corrupt practice made against the election agent of respondent No. 1 were sufficient and that the particulars furnished by the petitioner were adequate.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) for non-joinder of Shri R. D. Periwal as a respondent? 2. Whether the allegations of corrupt practice made against the election agent of respondent No. 1 were sufficient? 3. Whether the particulars furnished by the petitioner were adequate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provision of Section 86 (1) is mandatory and that the election petition was liable to be dismissed as Shri R. D. Periwal, who was a candidate at the election within the meaning of Section 82 (b), was not joined as a respondent to the petition. 2. The court held that the allegations of corrupt practice made against the election agent of respondent No. 1 were sufficient and that they amounted to corrupt practices under Section 123. 3. The court held that the particulars furnished by the petitioner were adequate and that the election agent had the same power of maintaining accounts and lodging them with the District Election Officer as the candidate himself.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition with costs in favor of respondent No. 1.
JAGAT NARAYAN, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People act 1951 challenging the election of Shri Surendra Kumar Taparia, respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha from the Pali Parliamentary Constituency. The petition has been filed by one Mohan Raj, an elector to the Constituency. The election has been challenged under Section 100 (1) (b) on the ground that respondent No. 1, his election agent and some other persons with his consent committed various corrupt practices defined under Section 123
( 2 ) THE election petition was presented before this Court on 7-4-67. It was put up on 14-4-67 before me with an office report that the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 had been complied with. This was done in pursuance of Section 86 (1)which lavs down that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of these Sections. It was not detected by me at that time that the petition did not comply with the provisions of Section 82fb ). Allegations of corrupt practice had been made in the petition against Shri R. P. Periwal who was the election agent of the returned candidate. Shri R. D. Periwal was himself a candidate at the election. He filed his nomination paper for the Lpk sabha from the Pali Parliamentary Constituency on 18-1-67. It was accepted as valid. Shri Periwal however withdrew his candidature on 23-1 -67.
( 3 ) SECTION 82 (b) provides that a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. "candidate" occurring in Section 82 (b) has been defined under section 79 (b) as follows:
" candidate means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election, and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate. "
( 4 ) AS Shri R. D. Periwal was duly nominated as a candidate at the election for this constituency he was a candidate within the meaning of the word as used in section 82 (b) and T should have dismissed the election petition on 14-4-67 under section 86 (1) on the ground that Shri Periwal was not joined as a respondent to the petition. The provision contained in Section 86 (1) is mandatory.
( 5 ) AS has been mentioned above, the petition was not dismissed under Section 86 (1) by me on 14-4-67. Respondent No. 1 appeared through counsel on 15-5-67 and prayed for time to file a written statement, which was granted. He filed his written statement on 15-6-67. In this written statement no objection was taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the petition was liable to be dismissed under section 86 (1) for non-compliance of Section 82 (b ). Objections were taken that several of the allegations were vague and were lacking in necessary particulars. On 2-7-67 a detailed order was passed asking the petitioner to furnish further and better particulars of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition. An amendment application was filed on 26-7-67 Respondent No. 1 filed objections against the amendment application. These objections were decided on 1-8-67. One allegation of corrupt practice and several instances of it were deleted for want of sufficient particulars. The petitioner was allowed to amend the petition in accordance with the order of this Court dated 1-8-67. Time was granted to respondent No. 1 to file an amended written statement. This amended written stale-merit was filed on 248-67.
( 6 ) IN this written statement a preliminary objection was taken that the petition should be dismissed under Section 86 (1) as Shri R. D. Periwal was not joined as a respondent This obiection in the written statement was based on the allegations contained in the amended election petition. The hearing of this preliminary objection commenced on 29-8-67. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 conte
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
