1967 Supreme(MP) 59

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. Bhargava, J.
RAMASHANKER PARMANAND - Appellant
Versus
JUGALKISHORE RAMASAHAYA BAJAJ - Respondents
Election Petn. 36 Of 1967
Decided On : 07/26/1967

The requirement of supplying copies of the election petition to the respondents according to Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory, and failure to comply with the requirement leads to the dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1).

Headnote:

ELECTION PETITION - DISMISSAL - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 81(3) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - AMENDMENT OF PETITION - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Ramshanker, filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent Jugalkishore, who was elected from the "hatta 162" constituency of the Vidhan Sabha of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner alleged that the respondent resorted to the corrupt practice described in Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by procuring and hiring vehicles for the conveyance of voters to the polling stations. The petitioner's copies of the petition served on the respondents did not include annexures (A), (2), and (3), which contained particulars of the corrupt practice. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition should be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act due to the non-compliance with Section 81(3). The petitioner filed an application under Section 86(5) of the Act seeking permission to incorporate the contents of the annexures into the petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the requirement of supplying copies of the petition to the respondents according to Section 81(3) is mandatory. The copies of the petition given by the petitioner with the omission of the annexures (A), (2), and (3) cannot be treated as copies or true copies of the petition within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act. The defect produced by the non-supply of copies is a defect of presentation of the petition and cannot be allowed to be cured subsequently. The amendment sought by the petitioner to incorporate the particulars given in the annexures into the petition is unnecessary and futile. The amendment, if permitted, would enable the petitioner to remove the defect of presentation, which cannot be allowed.

Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of supplying copies of the petition to the respondents according to Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory? 2. Whether the copies of the petition given by the petitioner with the omission of the annexures (A), (2), and (3) can be treated as copies or true copies of the petition within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act? 3. Whether the defect produced by the non-supply of copies is a defect of presentation of the petition and cannot be allowed to be cured subsequently? 4. Whether the amendment sought by the petitioner to incorporate the particulars given in the annexures into the petition is necessary and permissible?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the requirement of supplying copies of the petition to the respondents according to Section 81(3) is mandatory. The purpose of the requirement is to inform the respondents of the grounds on which the election is challenged. Failure to comply with the requirement leads to the consequence specified in Section 86(1), which is the dismissal of the petition. 2. The court held that the copies of the petition given by the petitioner with the omission of the annexures (A), (2), and (3) cannot be treated as copies or true copies of the petition within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act. The annexures contained material particulars of the corrupt practice alleged in the petition, and their omission rendered the copies incomplete and substantially different from the original petition. 3. The court held that the defect produced by the non-supply of copies is a defect of presentation of the petition and cannot be allowed to be cured subsequently. The defect is fundamental and goes to the root of the petition's validity. It cannot be cured by amendment under Section 86(5) of the Act or Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The court held that the amendment sought by the petitioner to incorporate the particulars given in the annexures into the petition is unnecessary and futile. The annexures were already part of the petition, and incorporating their contents into the body of the petition would not add any substance to the allegations. Moreover, the amendment would enable the petitioner to remove the defect of presentation, which is not permissible.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition with costs.