Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.
Election Petition No. 2 of 2013 Order reserved on: 28.11.2013 Date of decision 9-01-2014
Kuldeep Singh Pathania Versus Shri Bikram Singh Jaryal and others
The election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of material facts and particulars, as alleged.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, runner up candidate, filed an election petition under Sections 80, 80A and 81 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ( in short 'the 1951 Act'), calling in question the election of respondent No.1, returned candidate, from 5-Bhattiyat Assembly Constituency of H.P. Legislative Assembly held in 2012. The petitioner alleged that there were several violations committed during the course of election process by the concerned officials deputed by respondent No.2, the Returning Officer, which materially affected the result of the election. The petitioner also alleged that the election petition is not maintainable for want of any cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of material facts and particulars, as alleged. The court held that the petitioner has not provided sufficient details and particulars to support his allegations of violations committed during the election process. The court also held that the petitioner has not shown how the alleged violations materially affected the result of the election.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of material facts and particulars, as alleged? 2. Whether the election petition is not maintainable for want of any cause of action, as alleged?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles of law: * The election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. * The election petition must be verified in accordance with the law. * The election petition must be accompanied by the necessary annexures. The court held that the petitioner has not complied with these requirements. The court also held that the petitioner has not shown how the alleged violations materially affected the result of the election.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition in limine.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The election petition was filed by a runner-up candidate challenging the election of the respondent from a specific assembly constituency in Himachal Pradesh in 2012 (!) (!) .
The petitioner alleged multiple violations during the election process, including discrepancies in vote counts, irregularities at polling stations, improper counting of postal ballots, and possible tampering with EVMs, which materially affected the election result (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner raised objections regarding discrepancies in voter turnout, invalid postal ballots, double voting, and procedural irregularities, which were either ignored or inadequately addressed by the Returning Officer and election officials (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court examined whether the election petition contained sufficient material facts and whether it was verifiable and accompanied by necessary annexures, ultimately finding that the petition lacked adequate particulars to substantiate the allegations (!) (!) .
The court also considered whether the petition was maintainable and whether there was a valid cause of action, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the alleged violations materially impacted the election outcome (!) (!) .
The responses from the respondents, including the Returning Officer and election officials, consistently denied the allegations, asserting that all procedures were properly followed, objections were addressed lawfully, and the election process was free from malpractices (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The respondents also argued that any discrepancies or irregularities did not materially affect the final result, citing proper inquiries, approvals from higher authorities, and adherence to established procedures (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that some objections, such as discrepancies in vote counts and postal ballots, were either admitted, explained as clerical errors, or found to be within the scope of lawful procedures, and therefore did not warrant declaring the election void (!) (!) (!) .
The petition's grounds for declaring the election void, including allegations of illegal reception of votes and procedural irregularities, were found insufficiently substantiated to influence the election outcome significantly (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the election petition in limine, holding that the petitioner did not provide adequate material facts or demonstrate that the alleged violations materially affected the election result (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the core issues, allegations, responses, and legal reasoning reflected in the document.
V.K. Sharma, J. The present order shall dispose of issue Nos.2 to 5, as extracted below, which have been treated as preliminary issues in this election petition filed by the petitioner, runner up candidate, under Sections 80, 80A and 81 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ( in short 'the 1951 Act'), calling in question the election of respondent No.1, returned candidate, from 5-Bhattiyat Assembly Constituency of H.P. Legislative Assembly held in 2012:-
2) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of material facts and particulars, as alleged? OPR-1.
3) Whether the election petition is not maintainable for want of any cause of action, as alleged? OPR-1.
4) Whether the election petition and the accompanying annexures have not been verified in accordance with law and if so, its effect? .....OPR-1.
5) Whether the election petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties and is liable to be dismissed on this count? OPR-1.
2.The petitioner after stating his educational, professional and political credentials has averred that in 1985, he was elected to the State Legislative Assembly on Congress ticket. Thereafter, he was re-elected as an MLA in 1993 and 2003 as an independent candidate. In 2007, he was again re-elected as MLA for the 4th time. As an MLA, he remained Chairman of various House/Apex Govt. Committees and remained Chairman, State Finance Commission from 2003 to 2007. However, according to him, he lost 2012 election "unfortunately due to the malafide attitude of the Presiding Officers appointed to conduct the election and also with due and active connivance of the respondents, suffered a defeat by just a nominal margin of 111 votes only."
3.It is averred that consequent upon issuance of the requisite notification by the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in the month of October 2012, for holding general election to the State Assembly, the Election Commission of India vide notification issued under Section 80 of the 1951 Act, fixed the following election schedule:-
Sr. No. Poll Events Dates (all 68 ACs)
1. Issue of notification 10.10.2012 (Wednesday)
2. Last date for making Nominations 17.10.2012 (Wednes day) 3. Scrutiny of nominations 18.10.2012 (Thursday)
4. Last date of withdrawal of candidature 20.10.2012 (Saturday)
5. Date of Poll 04.11.2012 (Sunday)
6. 20.12.2012 (Thursday) Counting of votes.
7. Date before which election process shall be completed 24.12.2012 (Monday)
4.As many as six candidates including the petitioner being Congress candidate and respondent No.1 sponsored by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) fought the election. Whereas respondent No.1 who got 18098 votes won the election, the petitioner polled 17987 votes, the margin being 111 votes. One of the two independent candidates namely, Sh. Bhupinder Singh Chauhan scored 9870 votes. The score of others was in hundreds, the highest being 960. Sh. Kalu Ram, who was a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) got 482 votes, Ms. Sudesh Kumari, who was put up by Communist Party of India (CPI) polled 960 votes and the other independent candidate, Sh. Sushil Kumar Dhiman received 549 votes.
5.On the basis of certified copies of the relevant documents received by the petitioner from the office of SDO (Civil)-cum-Returning Officer, Bhattiyat, District Chamba through his agent, Sh. Rajeev Kaushal, the following "violations" enumerated vide paras 5 to 12 of the petition, were allegedly committed by the concerned officials deputed by respondent No.2, the Returning Officer, during the course of election process:-
"5. That since there were number of violations committed during the course of the election process by the concerned officials i.e. respondent No. 2 deputed to conduct the election, more especially at polling station No. 92 (Kamla). During the counting of the votes, it was noticed that in the above said polling station there were difference in the votes casted and votes recorded in the EVM (machine). The poll
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
