Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
RENU CHADHA - Appellant
Versus
ASHA KUMARI - Respondent
Election Petition No. 7 of 1998
Decided On : 08/19/1998
ELECTION LAW - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 80, 81, 83, 100, 123(1)(A)(b), 123(7) - Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) Election - Petition challenging the election of Respondent - Allegations of corrupt practices - Obtaining assistance of Gazetted Officer and inducing electors to vote by offering employment - Scrutiny of pleadings - Compliance with Section 83 of the Act - Verification of petition and annexures - Attestation of copies of petition - Legibility and completeness of annexures - Maintainability of petition.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, who contested and lost the election to the 9th Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, filed an election petition challenging the election of the Respondent, alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123(1)(A)(b) and 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (the Act). The Respondent raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, including non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act, improper verification, and illegible and incomplete annexures.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 83 of the Act requires a concise statement of material facts, full particulars of corrupt practices, and verification in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition must also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of allegations of corrupt practices. 2. The allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act, involving inducement of electors through employment, were found to be sufficiently pleaded, considering the reference to "electors" in the context of the Respondent's constituency. 3. Regarding the allegations under Section 123(7) of the Act, the petition adequately specified the date from which the Respondent gave herself out as a candidate, but the onus was on the Respondent to plead and prove the applicability of the proviso to the section, which saves certain acts of gazetted officers from being considered assistance for the candidate's election. 4. The petition was properly verified, except for the annexures, which lacked proper verification. However, this defect was not fatal and the petitioner was directed to file fresh annexures with proper verification within a specified period. 5. The copies of the petition and annexures supplied to the Respondent were found to be true copies, despite minor discrepancies in the attestation and certification. The typed copies of the annexures were also considered legible and complete. 6. The petition did not suffer from any fatal defect that would warrant its summary dismissal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioner has not complied with the requirement of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act? 2. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the Respondent is not a true copy of the petition and the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act have not been complied with? 3. Whether the allegations made in the election petition do not constitute corrupt practices as defined under Sections 123 (1-A), 123 (2) and 123 (7) of the Act and the petition is not maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with Section 83 of the Act in election petitions, particularly in cases involving allegations of corrupt practices. The petition must contain a concise statement of material facts, full particulars of corrupt practices, and be verified in the prescribed manner. 2. The court interpreted the term "elector" in the context of the allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act, holding that the reference to "electors" in the petition pertained to the electors of the Respondent's constituency. 3. The court clarified that the onus was on the Respondent to plead and prove the applicability of the proviso to Section 123(7) of the Act, which exempts certain acts of gazetted officers from being considered assistance for the candidate's election. 4. The court held that the defect in the verification of the annexures to the petition was not fatal and could be rectified by filing fresh annexures with proper verification within a specified period.
Final Decision: The court directed the Petitioner to file a fresh set of Annexures P-1 to P-19 containing the verification in accordance with Section 83(2) of the Act, within the stipulated period. The petition was not dismissed summarily, as it did not suffer from any fatal defect.
R.L KHURANA, J.—The Petitioner, Smt. Renu Chadha, who having contested the elections to the 9th Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) and lost herein, by virtue of the present petition preferred under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (for short the Act), has called in question the election of the Respondent, Smt. Asha Kumari, the returned candidate from 51, Banikhet Assembly Constituency. It has been prayed that the election of the Respondent from 51, Banikhet Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, be declared null and void and set aside, and that the Respondent be declared to be disqualified from contesting the elections.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent committed corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123 (7) of the Act, since she had obtained and procured the assistance of a Gazetted Officer, namely, Shri Attar Singh, District Primary Education Officer, Chamba, for the furtherance of the prospects of her election. It is averred that the Respondent, who at the relevant time was the Minister-in-charge of the Primary Education in the Government of Himachal Pradesh, through her influence got letters of appointment issued to various persons of the constituency on 6.2.1998, 7.2.1998 and 9.2 1998, appointed them as JBT teachers. For the purpose of issuance of such appointment letters, services of the above named Shri Attar Singh were procured for the furtherance of her election prospects.
3. Further case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent is also guilty of corrupt practice of bribery, as defined under Section 123 (1)(A)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as she had induced the electors to vote for her by giving them appointment/employment as part-time water carriers in different primary schools in her constituency.
4. The Respondent, while resisting the Petition, has raised the following preliminary objections :— (i) the petition lacks concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies with regard to corrupt practice; (ii) full particulars of corrupt practices as required under Section 83 (1)(b) of the Act have not been set forth; (iii) the petition has not been verified properly as required under Order 5, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure; (iv) the schedules/annexures to the petition have not been signed and verified by the Petitioner in accordance with Order 5, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure; (v) the affidavit in support of the petition is not in the prescribed form; (vi) the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent is not true copy of the original; (vii) the annexures/schedules which are integral part of the petition, have not been attested by the Petitioner to be true copy of the original; (viii) the allegations made in the petition do not constitute corrupt practices as provided under Section 123 of the Act; (ix) the verification/affirmation made by the Oath Commissioner on the affidavit is not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 94-A and From 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; (x) the copies of the petition do not conform to the original petition; and (xi) the annexures which have been filed with the copy of election petition served on the Respondent are illegible and incomplete. The following preliminary issues, therefore, were framed on 24.6.1998:—
1. Whether the Petitioner has not complied with the requirement of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act? If so, to what effect? OPR
2. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the Respondent is not a true copy of the petition and the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act have not been complied with? OPR
3. Whether the allegations made in the election petition do not constitute corrupt practices as defined under Sections 123 (1-A), 123 (2) and 123 (7) of the Act and the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the annexures which have been annexed with the el
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
