Back
1986 Supreme(All) 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. D. AGRAWAL
RAM CHARAN - Appellant
Versus
BHOLA SHANKAR - Respondents
ELECTION PETITION 55 Of 1985
Decided On : 01/16/1986
S.N.Mishra
An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practice, and the verification of the affidavit must disclose the source of information in respect of the alleged corrupt practices.
Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - Striking off of impugned paragraphs - Material facts and particulars - Corrupt practice - Verification of affidavit - Disclosure of grounds or sources of information.
Fact of the Case:
An election petition was filed challenging the election of the respondent on the grounds of holding an office of profit and exceeding the limit of election expenses. The respondent filed an application to strike off certain paragraphs of the petition for not containing a concise statement of material facts or full particulars of corrupt practice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the paragraphs impugned did not fulfill the essential requirements of Section 83(1)(a)/ (c) read with Section 100(1)(a) or Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court found that the petitioner had not averred material facts such as the respondent holding an office of profit on the date of election and that the office of profit was held under the State Government.
Issues: Whether the paragraphs impugned contained a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practice as required under Section 83(1)(a)/ (c) read with Section 100(1)(a) or Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the material facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated and the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. The court also held that the verification of the affidavit did not disclose the source of information in respect of the alleged corrupt practices, which was a mandatory requirement under Rule 11 Chapter V-A of the Rules of Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition and the recriminatory application filed by the respondent.
B. D. AGRAWAL, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an election petition under S. 81 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
( 2 ) ELECTION to the reserved constituency No. 43 Bilsi district Budaun for one candidate to the Legislative Assembly of the State was held in early 1985. Last date for nomination was 6th Feb. , 1985; the scrutiny was to take place on 7th Feb. , 1985; the nomination could be withdrawn within 9th Feb. , 1985. The poll was scheduled for Mar. 2, 1985. This was followed by counting of the ballot papers on 6th Mar. , 1985. Initially there were seven nominations for the seat, out of which that of the respondent 6 was rejected and hence the remaining six, including the petitioner alone, remained in the field. The respondent 1 was declared elected having secured 30,944 votes; the petitioner got the next highest number of votes being 26,521. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition claiming that the election of the respondent 1 be declared void and also that the petitioner be declared elected. .
( 3 ) THE petition is contested by the respondent No. 1 who has put in an action under S. 83 (1) of the Act read with O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11 Civil P. C. to the effect that the petition does not contain a concised statement of material facts or full particulars of corrupt practice and on the impugned paragraphs being struck off there survives no cause of action in the petitioners favour. This has been opposed by the petitioner.
( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
( 5 ) SRI S. N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, candidly stated that the paras, which may be treated as surviving are para 17 and Grounds A and C/ para 20 (a) and para 17 Ground G read with para 26 (b)/ (c ). For the remaining impugned paras contained in the petition he has no objection to their being struck off.
( 6 ) PARA 17, in so far as relevant, reads as under :- "17. That the election of Respondent I was void and illegal on the following amongst other grounds : a. Because Respondent 1 was holding an office of profit as a Public Notary and an objection was filed at the time of scrutiny before the Returning Officer, Budaun but the same has remained un-disposed of on account of the special interest of the officials who were interested in getting the Congress candidate illegally elected. This application was supported by an affidavit of 7th Feb. 1985. The petitioner is filing a true copy of the application and affidavit challenging the validity of the nomination paper of the said Respondent 1 which is marked as Annexure 1 to this petition. x x x c. Because the result of the election had been materially affected by accepting the nomination paper of Respondent 1 who had an office of profit as contemplated under S. 191 of the Constitution of India on the date of the nomination. As such he was disqualified to be a candidate at the election. " para 20 (a) of the election petition states :- " (a) That Respondent 1 is holding an office of profit as Public Notary and on that account has exercised influence and committed corrupt practice. "
( 7 ) CONTENTION of Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that these paras do not fulfil the essential requirement of S. 83 (1) (a)/ (c) read with S. 100 (1) (a) or S. 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Act. In view of S. 83 (1) (a) an election petition shall contain concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies; the requirement under Cl. (c) is that the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Civil P. C. for the verification of pleadings. The proviso to this clause lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. The provision made in S. 100 (1) (a) is to the effect that the election of the returned candidate sh
