V.S. DAVE, J.—This comes up for the disposal of two applications filed on behalf of respondent, Navrang Singh, one filed under sec. 81 read with sec. 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby it has been prayed that the election petition be dismissed for non-compliance of sec. 81 (1) of the Act. By another application it has been prayed that rule 4 of the rules regarding election petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951 framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance be struck down as the same are beyond the powers available to the High Court under Art. 225 of the Constitution of India and the said rule is violative of sec. 81 (1) of the Act as it over-rides this provision. In fact the second application was filed during the course of hearing of the earlier application when the petitioner had taken stand that the election petition has been presented in accordance with rule 4 of the aforesaid rules. |

2. The contention of the respondent is that the election petition has been presented by Rajendra Prasad Advocate and not by the petitioner himself, while according to sec. 81(1) of the Act the petitioner himself should present the petition. It is submitted that presentation of the petition by the election petitioner is mandatory provision of law and non-compliance of it must result in dismissal of the election petition under sec. 86 of the Act. It is submitted that it is undisputed between the parties that the petitioner neither presented the petition nor was physically present at the time of presentation of the election petition. It is further submitted that letter of authorisation from the election petitioner was also not submitted. The learned counsel in this respect relied upon the decision in case of Ramanlal Premi vs. Shiv Pratap Singh(l) and also seeks support from the observations made in Sheodan Singh vs. Mohan Lal(2). The learned counsel has submitted the written arguments and has submitted that election petition is required to be presented by two such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature; as is provided in Art. 439(b) of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter it is submitted that the presentation of the election petition is to be governed by Sec. 81 and not by any other provision and the rules framed by the Rajasthan High Court in this behalf can be of no avail in view of the provisions of Art. 329 (b) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the repealed sec. 81 (2) of the Act where the expression was an election petition shall be deemed to have been presented stands repealed which makes it further clear that Code of Civil Procedure or any other law has no application in the matter of presentation of the election petition and the entire matter has to be governed by the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel has further relied on a portion from the judgment reported in Satya Narain vs. Dhuja Ram(3) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petition can only be presented as required by sec. 81 (1) of the Act and further that the rule 4 is beyond the powers available to the High Court under Art. 225 of the Constitution and sec. 46 of the High Court Ordinance, 1949.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition has been validly presented under sec. 81 (1) of the Act because sec. 81 (1) of the Act only makes a provision as to who can file an election petition and does not deal with as to who should actually present it before the Registry. It is submitted that sec. 81 of the Act nowhere provides that the petitioner should be physically present at the time of presentation of the election petition and as to the manner of presentation rules have been framed under the High Court Ordinance which authorises an Advocate to f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document