The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of attestation by the petitioner under his own signature for every copy of the election petition intended for service on the respondents, as per Section 89(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Through the medium of this election petition, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 6 namely, Surjit Singh to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from Vijaypur Constituency No. 69 the result of which was declared on 28.12 2008.

2. It is averred that respondent No. 6 got 21090 votes whereas petitioner stood second in the fray with 19878 votes, thus losing to respondent No. 6 by a margin of 1212 votes Thus, petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 6 mainly on the ground that respondent No. 6 was the beneficiary of not less than 4000 invalid votes which were allowed to cast in the said election by the serious acts of omission and commission on the part of respondents 2 to 4. It is alleged that these votes were allowed to cast by certain polling officers using unlawful means, i.e., allowing such persons to cast their votes having no identity cards; allowing a number of persons to cast votes under disguise identity or having doubtful identity; allowing about 600 persons in Polling Station No. 17 carrying fake identity in the shape of Passports; in certain polling stations there was a clear difference between number of voters recorded and number of votes polled; replacing some of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMS) without the notice of petitioner and allowing number of voters in some of the polling stations to cast their votes even after the expiry of time prescribed. Thus, it is averred that in a number of polling stations in Vijaypur Constituency many polling officers in connivance with respondents 2 to 4 had facilitated bogus voting only to make way for respondent No. 6. Thus, respondents are stated to have committed corrupt practices.

3. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and 6.

4. This Court on 10.07.2015 framed as many as eight issues for the effective disposal of election petition. With the consensus of learned counsel appearing for the parties. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary issue, which is to the following effect:

"Whether the Election Petition has not been drafted as per the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 and rules framed thereunder and, if so, its effect? OPR"

5. When this case was taken up on 11.02.2016, learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed to argue on the preliminary issue. Accordingly, the matter was heard on preliminary issue and reserved for pronouncement of judgment. After the matter was reserved, Mrs. Shekhar, learned Sr. AAG, submitted written arguments on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 with regard to preliminary issue. Along with written arguments, she also enclosed copy of election petition received by respondents 2 to 4. Thus, this judgment is primarily confined to this issue only.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents argued that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 89, 90 and 91 of the J&K Representation of People Act, 1957 (hereinafter, for short, the Act), inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to attest and verify every copy of election petition under his own signature as regards the number of respondents, so as to construe every such copy to be true copy of the petition in terms of the Act.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file.

8. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the appearing respondents is that every copy of election petition has not been attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition as required by Section 89(3) of the Act, and that the election petition has not been drafted in accordance with the Act.

9. Section 89(3) of the Act provides that a copy of the petition shall be attested by the petitioner "under his own signature" to be a true copy of the petition, whereas Section 94(1) of the Act mandates that "the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 89 or Section 90 or S