Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
M. Hidayatullah, C. J. and B. K. Choudhuri, J.
HARI VISHNU KAMATH - Appellant
Versus
ELECTION TRIBUNAL - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 155 Of 1957
Decided On : 09/09/1957
ELECTION PETITION - Particulars - Amendment - Striking out - Powers of Tribunal - Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Secs. 83, 85, 90.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the second respondent on the ground of corrupt practices. The Tribunal ordered the petitioner to supply better particulars and struck out those particulars which were vague and indefinite. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal had no power to order the petitioner to supply better particulars. The Court also held that the Tribunal could strike out the particulars which were vague and indefinite, but it could not strike out the entire petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had the power to order the petitioner to supply better particulars? 2. Whether the Tribunal could strike out the particulars which were vague and indefinite?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal did not have the power to order the petitioner to supply better particulars because Section 83(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which previously gave the Tribunal this power, was amended in 1956 to remove this power. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal could strike out the particulars which were vague and indefinite because Section 90(3) of the Act, which gives the Tribunal the power to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81, Section 82 or Section 17, was not amended in 1956.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Tribunal directing deletion of paragraph 5 (II) of the petition and the order to supply the particulars.
( 2 ) THE matter arises out of an interlocutory order by which the petitioner has been asked to supply better particulars which, according to the Tribunal, were not fully stated in the petition. An anticipatory order striking out those particulars held to be vague, has also been passed, if the order is not obeyed within the time fixed.
( 3 ) THE facts of the case are simple. The election petition was presented to question the election of the second respondent on the ground that corrupt practices were committed by the returned candidate or his election agent or other persons with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, or that in any event the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, was materially affected by corrupt practices committed in the interest of the returned candidate by persons other than the candidate or his election agent or persons acting with the consent of such candidate or his election agent, and by noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or of rules and orders made under the Act.
( 4 ) IN setting up his case against the returned candidate Shri Kamath divided his petition into three parts. The first part of the petition is to be found in pargarph 5 (I) of the petition which has been summarised by us in brief in paragraph 3 above. The second part (paragraph 5 (11)) dealt with the corrupt practices and divided them into five classes. They are briefly:
(a) Bribery, i. e. , gifts, offers or promises made by the candidate or his agent, etc. , to induce voters or electors to vote for the second respondent, (b) undue influence exercised on the voters or the electors. (c) hiring and procuring of vehicles by the candidate and his agent or other persons, (d) publications by the said candidate or his agent or by other persons of statements of fact which were or are false, and which he or they either believed to be false or did not believe to be true, and (e) obtaining or procuring, or attempting to obtain or procure by the candidate or his agent or by other persons assistance for furtherance of the prospects of the returned candidate's election from persons in the service of the Government and belonging to the classes mentioned in section 23 (7) of the Act.
Thereafter the petitioner set out the third part which described the particulars of these corrupt practices, and they are contained in paragraphs 7 to 29 of the petition. It is not necessary to refer to these particulars here.
( 5 ) WHEN the matter came before the Tribunal the second respondent raised an objection that the particulars given in the petition were too vague and indefinite and that they should be struck out. In reply to that application the petitioner stated that he was willing to state further particulars as the Tribunal may be pleased to order, and thus the order of the Tribunal came to be made. The Tribunal scanned the petition and found fault with many of the particulars which were mentioned in paragraphs 7 to 29 of the petition on the ground that they were vague and indefinite, and ordered the petitioner to supply more particulars on pain of the particulars such as they were being struck out. The Tribunal also ordered the petitioner to delete paragraph 5 (11) of the petition which contained a list of corrupt practices in general, details of which were given in paragraphs 7 to 29 of the petition. The Tribunal also saddled the petitioner with rs. 100/- as costs of adjournment and ordered that the verification of the petition, which was said to be defective, should be brought in line with the Code of Civi
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
