Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Giriraj Singh Majhi – Appellant
Versus
Laxman Bag – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election petition validity challenges (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding re-stamp reporting (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on previous orders (Para 4) |
| 4. dismissal of the i.a. (Para 5) |
| 5. final decision on i.a. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This I.A. has been filed by the respondent in Election Petition No.12 of 2024 (Laxman Bag-Returned candidate) praying for directing the Registry for re-stamp reporting of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner in terms of the High Court Rules stating in the I.A. that, the Election Petition has been filed by the Election Petitioner questioning the validity of the Election of the respondent (returned candidate) on the ground of furnishing false, misleading and incorrect particulars in his affidavit in Form-26 relating to the movable and immovable assets in Part A and Part B with his nomination papers. Therefore, the result of the Election of the respondent has been materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination papers as well as for non-compliance of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and as such, in the pleadings of the Election Petitioner, there is allegation of corrupt
Election petitions must adhere to procedural requirements; defects in compliance are addressed post-evidence gathering, not at preliminary stages.
Affidavits in election petitions must meet specific legal standards; non-compliance leads to dismissal.
An election petition is required to be signed and verified in same manner as is laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for verification of pleadings. However, if petition alleges any corrupt ....
Election petitions must comply with statutory requirements, including proper affidavits and clear allegations, or they risk dismissal for lack of cause of action.
Election Petition – Requirement to file affidavit under proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is not mandatory – It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance.
Point of Law : In the event of a necessary party not being made a party to the Election Petition, it would be incumbent upon the Court to dismiss the petition.
An election petition must disclose material facts to establish a cause of action; vague allegations are insufficient for dismissal, and substantial compliance with procedural rules is mandated.
Allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be supported by specific material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83 of the RP Act of 1951. Failure to plead such materi....
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of alleged corrupt practices; failure to do so renders the petition non-maintainable.
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
