Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. P. GUPTA
SAYED AHMED - Appellant
Versus
BRIJENDRA NATH PATHAK - Respondents
E. P. 76 Of 1994
Decided On : 05/09/1997
The court held that the Election Commission's order postponing the election was not illegal or without jurisdiction. The court also held that the petitioner failed to show that the result of the election was materially affected by the postponement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a losing candidate in an election for the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the Election Commission's order postponing the election was illegal and without jurisdiction, and that the postponement materially affected the result of the election.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Election Commission had the power to postpone the election under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and Section 153 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court also found that the Election Commission's order was not arbitrary or capricious, and that it was based on a reasonable belief that the purity of the election process was being jeopardized by the presence of the petitioner's father, who was the Governor of another state, in the constituency.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission's order postponing the election was illegal or without jurisdiction. 2. Whether the postponement of the election materially affected the result of the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Election Commission's order postponing the election was not illegal or without jurisdiction because the Election Commission had the power to postpone the election under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and Section 153 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court also held that the Election Commission's order was not arbitrary or capricious, and that it was based on a reasonable belief that the purity of the election process was being jeopardized by the presence of the petitioner's father, who was the Governor of another state, in the constituency.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition was a losing candidate of Indian National Congress in the elections for the M. P. Legislative Assembly from 63 Satna Assembly Constituency, the result of which was declared on 29th January 1994. The respondent was declared elected in this election. Election to M. P. State Legislative Assembly had been notified by the Governor on 23rd Oct. 1993 vide Notification No. 15-93-IV (Elec.) 696 dated 23-10-93 issued u/s. 15 (2) of Representation of the People Act 1951. Pursuant to this the Election Commission issued notification No. 964/mp/la/93 (1) dated 23-10-93 u/s. 30 of that Act. Nominations were invited between 23rd October to 30th Oct. 93. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed for 1-11-1993 and withdrawal date was upto 3rd November 1993. Polling had been fixed for 23rd Nov. 1993. However, the election of this constituency was postponed by the Election Commissioner vide Notification No. 464/mp/la/93 dated 21-11-93 received by the District Returning Officer, District, Satna. The election was held on 24th January 1994 and the respondent was declared as the winning candidate by a margin of about 1500 votes. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this result and filed the present election petition on two counts : (I) that the postponement of election was illegal, unjustified and without jurisdiction of the Election Commission and also against the principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the Representation of thePeople Act 1951 and of the Constitution of India in postponing the election date from 23rd November, 1993 to 24th January, 1994 and due opportunity was not given to the petitioner and, therefore, the result of the election was tilted in favour of the respondent due to postponement of election and due to the events following thereafter and (II) that the postponement of election gave an opportunity for a number of corrupt practices to the candidate of opposite party, which are enumerated in the petition. However, the ground of corrupt practices does not survive in this petition, because, vide order of this court dated 11-10-96, it was directed that the allegations of corrupt practices shall stand struck off, for the reason that the petitioner had not supplied, for service of the notice to the opposite party, true copy of the affidavit sworn before the authorised officer or Notary in support of the allegations of corrupt practices and in so far as it has not been disclosed as to before which authority the affidavit has been sworn and a copy of the certificate of verification, of the notary or the authority concerned, has not been supplied to the respondent. This result followed the interpretation put to the provisions of Section 83 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Rule 94 (A) of the rules framed under that Act, Form 25 prescribing the form of affidavit under those rules and Section 81 (3) and Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra etc. v. Shantibai Khoiwal etc. cited at AIR 1996 SC 1691.
( 2 ) THUS, the only ground which now survives in this petition is on the plea that the postponement of the election was illegal, unauthorised, against the principles of natural justice and so without jurisdiction and further that it has affected the result of the election unduly in favour of the respondent. The petitioner claims that the election of the respondent be set aside on the ground laid down in Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which is in the following terms :-"subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the High Court is of opinion - (a) to (c) ---- ---- ---- (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected (i) to (iii) ---- ---- ---- (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act. the High Court shall d
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
