IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH, J.
Narendra - Appellant
Versus
Sukhdeo And Others - Respondents
Election Petition No. 3 of 1991
Decided On : 20-05-1992
ELECTION PETITION - DISMISSAL - MATERIAL FACTS - CORRUPT PRACTICE - BOOTH CAPTURING - COPY OF ELECTION PETITION - TRUE COPY - SECTION 83(1) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951 - ORDER 6 RULE 16 AND ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The election Petitioner filed a petition challenging the election of the returned candidate from the 217 Lalganj Assembly Constituency in district Azamgarh on the grounds of improper reception of void votes, improper acceptance of votes in favor of the returned candidate, non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, and the conduct of the Election Rules 1961, as well as the commission of the corrupt practice of booth capturing by the returned candidate and his agents and workers with his consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition lacked material facts and particulars relating to the allegations of corrupt practice and booth capturing, and that the copy of the election petition supplied to the returned candidate was not a true copy as required by Section 81(3) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition contained a concise statement of material facts with regard to the grounds on which the Petitioner relies as required by Section 83(1) of the Act? 2. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the returned candidate was a true copy as required by Section 81(3) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the election petition did not contain a concise statement of material facts with regard to the grounds on which the Petitioner relies as required by Section 83(1) of the Act. The court found that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient details and particulars to support the allegations of improper reception of void votes, improper acceptance of votes in favor of the returned candidate, non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the commission of the corrupt practice of booth capturing. 2. The court held that the copy of the election petition supplied to the returned candidate was not a true copy as required by Section 81(3) of the Act. The court found that page 11 of the copy of the election petition was wholly illegible and that it could not be said to be a true copy of the original page 11 in the election petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application filed by the returned candidate and dismissed the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC and u/s 86 of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act.
Om Prakash, J.
This is an application by Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate) who has declared to have been elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly from 217 Lalganj Assembly Constituency in district Azamgarh which had undergone poll on 20th May, 1991, under Sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) and under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in brevity Code of Criminal Procedure) with a prayer that paragraphs Nos. 22 to 24, 28, 32 to 34, 36 to 41, 43, 44, 47. 48. 54 to 58, 60, 61 and 63 to 65 of the election petition filed by the opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the election Petitioner) be struck out and consequently the petition be dismissed in limine with costs.
2. The election Petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the election of the returned candidate from the aforesaid constituency on the grounds:
(A) that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been materially affected "by improper reception of void votes and improper acceptance of votes in favour of Respondent No. 1 and noncompliance with the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the conduct of the Election Rules 1961" (for short the Rules);
(B) that in fact the Petitioner has received majority of valid votes ;
(C) that the returned candidate and his agents and workers with his consent "have committed the corrupt practice of booth capturing within the meaning of Section 123(8) of the Representation of Peoples Act and;
(D) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice of booth capturing committed by himself and his agents and workers with his consent," the Petitioner has received a greater majority of valid votes.
Paragraphs Nos. 22 to 27 of the election petition are said to have contained a concise statement of material fact with regard to grounds 'A' & 'B' and material facts relating to grounds 'C & 'D' are said to stated in paragraphs Nos. 49 to 63.
3. By means of this application, the returned candidate has raised a preliminary objection that the election petition be summarily dismissed under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Sections 86 and for non-compliance with other provisions of the Act, inasmuch as the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts with regard to any of the grounds on which the Petitioner relies as required by Section 83(1) of the Act. It is urged by Sri Raja Ram Yadav, learned Counsel for the returned candidate that Section 83 of the Act is mandatory and the election petition is liable to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance thereof On the other hand, the submission of Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that paragraphs sought to be struck off by the returned candidate, contains complete material facts relating to the grounds set up in the petition and, therefore, the Petitioner can not be dismissed summarily under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 86.
4. Relevant pleadings on the plea of re-count are said to have contained in paragraphs Nos. 22 to 47. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties on the plea of re-count, it is necessary to state the relevant pleadings of the election Petitioner.
5. In para 24 of the petition it is stated that 509 ballot papers were issued to the voters at polling station No. 151-Kosara Primary Pathshala for cast in their votes of these two ballot papers were cancelled by the Presiding Officer himself finding them defective. Thus only 507 votes were polled at the polling station No. 151. It is pleaded that only 507 ballot papers having been issued to the voters for casting their votes, ballot papers more than 507 could not have been found in the ballot box relating to polling station No. 151.
Daulat Ram Chauhan Vs. Anand Sharma
Dr. Jagjit Singh Vs. Giani Kartar Singh and Others
Rajendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani
Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Others
Samant N. Balkrishna and Another Vs. V. George Fernandez and Others
Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Shri Kirshna Behari and Others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.