Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 578
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. SRIVASTAVA
BADAN SINGH RAGHUVANSHI - Appellant
Versus
B.RAJGOPAL NAIDU - Respondents
ELECTION PETITION 11 Of 1999
Decided On : 08/18/1999
V.S.CHAUHAN
Non-compliance with the rules framed by the High Court for the presentation of election petitions, including the requirement to file the petition in English and in the prescribed format, renders the petition not entertainable.
Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - DISMISSAL - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULES - LANGUAGE AND FORMAT - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 81(3) - RULES FRAMED BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an authorized candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party, lost the election for the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh by 544 votes. He filed an election petition seeking a stay on the declaration of results and a recount of votes. The petition was presented in Hindi and did not comply with the format requirements as per Rule 2 of the Rules relating to Election Petitions framed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court noted that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the trial of election petitions by the High Court, but it does not specify the procedure for presenting the petition. 2. The High Court had framed rules for the presentation of election petitions, including requirements for the language and format of the petition. 3. The court held that the rules framed by the High Court were valid and binding, and that non-compliance with the rules, including the requirement to file the petition in English and in the prescribed format, rendered the petition not entertainable. 4. The court also found that the petition did not comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires that copies of the petition be attested by the petitioner as true copies. 5. The court further held that the pleadings in the petition relating to the relief of recounting were obscure and did not contain material facts, and that the petition did not disclose a cause of action for the relief sought.
Issues: 1. Whether an election petition presented in Hindi and not complying with the format requirements as per Rule 2 of the Rules relating to Election Petitions framed by the High Court is entertainable. 2. Whether non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, renders the petition not entertainable. 3. Whether the pleadings in the petition relating to the relief of recounting were sufficient to establish a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rules framed by the High Court for the presentation of election petitions were valid and binding, and that non-compliance with the rules rendered the petition not entertainable. 2. The court also held that the mandatory requirement under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires that copies of the petition be attested by the petitioner as true copies, was not complied with, rendering the petition not entertainable. 3. The court further held that the pleadings in the petition relating to the relief of recounting were obscure and did not contain material facts, and that the petition did not disclose a cause of action for the relief sought.
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed as not entertainable and triable, and the proceedings were terminated.
( 1 ) THE petitioner claims that he was the authorised candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party to contest the election of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from Constituency No. 249, Shamshabad and had been allotted "kamal" as the election symbol.
( 2 ) THE result of the election was declared on 28-11-1998 whereunder the petitioner was shown to have lost the election by 544 votes.
( 3 ) BY means of the present election petition; the election petitioner has prayed for staying the declaration of the result by the respondent No. 1 with a direction for recounting of the votes.
( 4 ) THE election petition was presented by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur on 9-1-1999. He had been identified by Shri V. S. Parihar, Advocate from Ujjain.
( 5 ) THE Additional Registrar in his report dated 9-1-1999 has pointed out that the election petition was in Hindu language and quarter margin had not been left in the left side, therefore, it contravened Rule 2 of the Rules relating to the election petitions.
( 6 ) THE election petition was put up for orders before the Court on 26-3-1999 along with the aforesaid objections raised by the Additional Registrar.
( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner on that date sought for two weeks time to enable him to study the matter in regard to the aforesaid objections.
( 8 ) ON 19-4-1999, Shri V. S. Chouhan, Advocate filed his vakalatnama putting his appearance in the case representing the election petitioner. On that date, he sought for one week's time for making the submissions in regard to the objections raised by the Additional Registrar. The time sought for was granted.
( 9 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length on the objections in question as well as the question in regard to the issue of notice to the respondents which has been prayed for. I have also carefully perused the record.
( 10 ) THE provisions contained in Section 87 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, stipulate that subject to the provisions of the said Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
( 11 ) HOWEVER, Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides as follows :"4. Savings.- (1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force. " (2) ***"
( 12 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers including those envisaged under the notification issued by the Chief Justice under Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had framed the rules relating to the Election Petitions presented before it as provided under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These Rules were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary dated 22-2-1967. Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules provides as under :"2. Every Election Petition shall be- (a) typewritten or printed fairly and legibly on white foolscap size paper of reasonable quality, one side of the paper only being used, leaving a quarter margin on the left and at least 1/2 inches open space on the top and bottom of each sheet; (b) written in the English language, numbering separately the paragraph thereof; (c) couched in proper language, and in conformity with Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. "
( 13 ) ARTICLE 329, sub-clause (b) of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as contained in Sections 80 and 87 of the said Act, provides as foll
