Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 1633
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Raj Singh, Sarpanch
Versus
Gurcharan Singh, M.L.A.
Election Petition No. 14 of 1997,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 20, 1997
Important Points
Subject
Election Law - ELECTION PETITION
Act Referred
Headnote
ELECTION PETITION - CORRUPT PRACTICE - BRIBERY - AFFIDAVIT - COPY OF AFFIDAVIT - VERIFICATION - ATTESTATION - TRUE COPY - MAINTAINABILITY OF ELECTION PETITION - DISMISSAL OF ELECTION PETITION - SECTION 81(3), 83(1)(C), 86 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - RULE 94-A OF THE CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES, 1961 - FORM 25.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Raj Singh filed an election petition challenging the election of Gurcharan Singh from 87 - Dirba Assembly Constituency of Punjab State, alleging that the respondent committed corrupt practice of bribery by asking for votes by promising and/or delivering cheques on the condition of being supported in the election.
Finding of the Court:
1. The copy of the affidavit (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner along with the election petition did not contain the attestation made by the Oath Commissioner on the original affidavit (Annexure P-2). 2. The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the election petition was not in accordance with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, as the true copy of the affidavit (Annexure P-2) was not given to the respondent as required under Section 83(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by asking for votes by promising and/or delivering cheques on the condition of being supported in the election? 2. Whether the petitioner has no right to challenge the respondents election as he is not the elector of 87-Dirba Assembly Constituency? 3(a) Whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the election petition is not in accordance with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules? 3(b) Whether the true copy of this affidavit was not given to the respondent as required Under Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act? If so, whether on this count the election petition is liable to be dismissed Under Section 86 of the said Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Apex Court has held that the absence of the endorsement of the Notary on the copy of the affidavit accompanying election petition renders the copy as not conforming the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act. And therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed on account of that omission. 2. The concept of substantial compliance of filing the original with the election petition and the omission thereof in the copy supplied to the returned candidate as true copy cannot be said to be a curable irregularity.
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed as the copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the election petition was not in accordance with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and the true copy of the affidavit (Annexure P-2) was not given to the respondent as required under Section 83(1) of the Act.
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Petitioner Raj Singh has filed this election petition against Gurcharan Singh - returned candidate challenging his election from 87 - Dirba Assembly Constituency of Punjab State, result of which was declared on 10.2.1997.
2. In a nutshell, relevant facts mentioned in the election petition are that the petitioner is a resident of Village Ghanaur Jattan and is registered an elector in the electoral roll pertaining to 87-Dirba. Punjab Legislative Assembly Constituency, a part of the 10 - Sangrur Parliamentary Constituency of the Punjab State. The respondent filed his nomination Papers for election to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha from 87- Dirba Assembly Constituency on 18.1.1997. As earlier he was a sitting M.L.A. and an Ex-Minister of the Punjab Government, before election programme for holding poll was announced by the Election Commission of India, respondent started convassing at different places forming part of the 87-Dirba Assembly Constituency with the object of convassing his candidature. In this attempt, he started giving grants for the items of development of the choice of electors by arranging the same from the government department concerned if they promise to support and vote for him in the coming election as respondent was a Member of the District Planning Board, Sangrur. In view of the policy decision of the erst - while Congress Government, he collected cheques issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and kept the same with himself in order to bargain for the votes and support of the different Panches and Sarpanches to promote his chance of electoral success by giving them as grants bait. On 19.1.1977 respondent assured financial help for grave-yard for the Muslim community in village Khanal Khurd. Similarly in village Dialgarh Jejian, the respondent addressed a gathering and promised that he would give the grant for constructing a shed at the Shamshanghat if they would vote and support for his candidature. In village Naraingarh, respondent not only gave a promise for giving a cheque of good amount for executing the development work in the village, but actually he handed over a cheque to Sarpanch Bhurpur Singh on the promise that the people gathered there would vote for him. Same tactics were adopted by him in village Ramgarh and Bijalpur as well. In village Ghanaur Jattan, he addressed a pre-arranged gathering on 13.1.1997 and promised them that he would upgrade school of that village provided the villagers vote for him. He also promised to give a development grant to that village.
3. The petitioner further averred that on 1.2.1997 the respondent went to Bhattiwal Kalan where before pre-arranged gathering, he offered to give a grant of Rs. one lac provided the villagers vote for him, but as the Sarpanch declined, the respondent kept back the cheque with him. In village Bhattiwal Khurd also the same-thing happened. The respondent offered to give a cheque of Rs. 50,000/-, but as the Sarpanch and other villagers refused to sell, their votes, the respondent came back with the cheque. Thus, the petitioner contended that the respondent has committed corrupt practice of bribe by asking for votes by promising and/or delivering cheques on the condition of being supported in the electron and oh this ground, he prayed that the respondents election be declared void.
4. Along with election petition the petitioner filed his own affidavit running in three pages and annexed Forms B and BB running from pages 14 to 17.
5. Along with the election petition, petitioner filed two copies of the election petition with a copy of his affidavit and annexures.
6. Respondent filed written statement inter alia denied all the alleged allegations of corrupt practice and raised preliminary objection that this election petition which rests on the allegation of corrupt practice is liable to be dismissed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules as the copy of the election petition is not accompanied by
