SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vivek Chaudhary, J.
Dr. Lal Bahadur – Petitioner
Versus
Ritesh Pandey – Respondent
Election Petition No. - 1 of 2019
Decided On : 25-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, Amit Tripathi, Asheesh Agnihotri, Avinash Chandra, Badrus Sahar, Kali Prasad Singh, Prashant Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Shakti Vikram Srivastava

Point of Law : An Election Petition presented to the Election Commission is scrutinised by it and if Election Commission does not dismiss it for want of compliance with provisions of Section 81, Section 82 or Section 117 of Act, it accepts same and causes a copy thereof to be published in official gazette and a copy thereof to be served by post on each respondent.

Headnote:

Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 6(b) of Chapter XV-A - High Court Rules - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Election petition - Advertisement - Publication of notice in newspaper - Court directed that notices shall be issued by ordinary post, registered A.D. and shall also be published simultaneously in a newspaper having wide circulation in area to be selected by Registry of Court - Petitioner deposited an amount as required under Rule 6(b) of Rules, 1952 - Senior Registrar of this Court by order permitted publication in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran widely circulated in area - Thereafter, office by its report - reported that notices were provided to petitioner for publication in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran - Notices were also sent to respondent by other modes as directed by court, which stand served upon respondent.

Finding of the court : Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not filed before this Court the original election petition. Copy filed along with Court fee is a ‘true copy attested’. Such a declaration is made on each and every page of the election petition and its annexures. It is not a case where it can be said to be a bonafide mistake, as on one page or some of pages, such a declaration is made. The entire election petition on each and every page bears a declaration that it is a ‘true copy attested’ - Supreme Court in case of Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another (2006) 1 SCC 75, has considered impact of defects in signing of appeals/petitions and Vakalatnama filed along with same - In view of discussions made hereinabove, C.M. Application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is disposed of, holding that election petition itself is not maintainable - In view of above, since application for exemption from publication is already rejected and there is no publication made in newspaper by petitioner which is mandatorily required as held above, therefore, present election petition itself is not maintainable and further, in view of order passed on C.M. Application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. that election petition is not maintainable on grounds as discussed above.

Result : Election petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(C.M. Application No.115252 of 2021-Application for exemption from publication of notice in Newspaper)

(C.M. Application No.118492 of 2021-Application for extension of time to file reply to the application for exemption from publication filed by petitioner)

(C.M. Application No.118015 of 2021-Reply/Objection to aforesaid application no. 11252 of 2021)

1. C.M. Application No.115252 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner praying that he may be exempted from publishing notice in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, Ambedkar Nagar Edition, as was directed by the Court by it’s orders dated 18.7.2019 and 23.9.2019.

2. Against the aforesaid application, objections are filed on behalf of respondent, which bears C.M. Application No.118015 of 2021 and an Application for condoning delay in filing objections is C.M. Application no.118492 of 2021.

3. I have heard the petitioner, who appears in person, and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for the respondent.

4. The facts with regard to publication of notice in newspaper are, that, notices on the election petition were issued by order-dated 18.7.2019. The Court directed that notices shall be issued by ordinary post, registered A.D. and shall also be published simultaneously in a newspaper having wide circulation in the area to be selected by the Registry of the Court. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.250/-on 22.07.2019, as required under Rule 6(b) of Chapter XV-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (for short ‘the High Court Rules’). The Senior Registrar of this Court by order-dated 23.7.2019 permitted the publication in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran widely circulated in the area. Thereafter, office by its report-dated 4.9.2019 reported that notices were provided to the petitioner for publication in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran. Notices were also sent to the respondent by other modes as directed by the court, which stand served upon the respondent. However, the petitioner has returned the notice for publication through his letter dated 8.8.2019, stating his inability to get the notice published in local Dainik Jagran, with request to the office to get the same published. The report also notes that a letter is sent to the Editor/Manager, Advertisement, Hindi daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ for providing quotation/charges for publication of notice and its reply is still awaited. The matter was placed before the Court; whereon the Court considered the office report dated 4.9.2019 and directed the matter to be placed on 23.9.2019. On 23.9.2019, the Court found that quotation is received from the Manager (Marketing), Dainik Jagran and directed that notice be published in newspaper as per order of the Senior Registrar on deposit of necessary charges and directed the case to be listed on 31.10.2019. On 30.10.2019, office submitted a report that ‘in compliance of Hon. Court order dated 23.9.2019, a letter was sent to the petitioner but petitioner has not deposited the necessary charges for publication of notice, hence notice could not be published in the news paper’. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 31.10.2019. On the said date, the petitioner appeared but the case was adjourned on the illness slip of learned counsel for respondent. On the dates fixed thereafter, learned counsel for the respondent took time for filing the written statement or otherwise filed adjournment applications. The case was also delayed on certain dates due to COVID pandemic situation. It was taken up on 6.9.2021 and an oral objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that despite order of this court dated 23.9.2021 petitioner has not deposited the money for publication of notice in newspaper. On the said objection petitioner took two days time for filing appropriate application.

5. In furtherance of the said order, petitioner on 8.9.2021 filed the present application for exemption from publication of notice. Petitioner in Para

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  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

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top