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

2010 Supreme(MP) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Appellants: Sukh Lal Kushwaha
Vs.
Respondent: Ganesh Singh
Decided On: 28.01.2010

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for election petitions to plead material facts alleging corrupt practice and to file the required affidavit as per the rules. Failure to comply with these requirements may lead to the summary dismissal of the petition.

Headnote:

Dismissal of Election Petition - Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 16 - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 81(1)(a), (b), (c) - Summary Dismissal of Election Petition for Non-Compliance with Provisions of the Act

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed an application for the dismissal of the election petition on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner failed to file a reply to the application and the parties were heard. The respondent contended that the election petition lacked material facts and particulars, citing recent judgments and rules. The petitioner opposed, stating that evidence would be adduced to prove the grounds. The allegations in the election petition were related to corrupt practices in the election of a Member of Parliament from Constituency No. 9, Satna.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to plead material facts alleging corrupt practice and to file an affidavit as required under Rule 94A of the Rules. The court dismissed the election petition summarily due to non-furnishing of material facts and particulars, and non-filing of the required affidavit.

Issues: Non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 16. Failure to plead material facts alleging corrupt practice and to file the required affidavit under Rule 94A of the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election petition lacked material facts and particulars, and the petitioner failed to file the required affidavit, leading to the summary dismissal of the petition.

Final Decision: The application filed by the respondent was allowed, and the election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

ORDER

K.K. Lahoti, J.

Order on I.A. No. 76/09 under Order 7 Rule 11 and under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

1. The respondent has filed this application for dismissal of the election petition on following grounds:

(a) That the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 81(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').

(b) That the petitioner has not made specific allegations in the manner prescribed under the Act. Each allegation of corrupt practice should have been mentioned with material facts and particulars thereof in accordance with the provisions of section 81(1) (a) and (b) of the Act.

(c) That the petitioner has not disclosed that on what date and the time the respondent committed corrupt practice. What are the acts alleged aganst the respondent amount to corrupt practice. Particulars have not been furnished by the petitioner.

(d) That apart from an affidavit filed along with the election petition, a specific affidavit in support of the allegations of the corrupt practice ought to have been filed in Form No. 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In absence of such an affidavit, the election petition is liable to be dismissed in so far as it relates to allegations of corrupt practice. The affidavit filed alongwith the election petition does not comply with the provisions as contained in Rule 94A of the Rules.

(e) That in absence of the sufficient material in the pleadings, the election petition does not disclose a cause of action for filing of the petition for its trial and on this ground alone the election petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not furnished the name of parties alleged to have been committed corrupt practice, the date and place of commission of such corrupt practice.

(f) That the petitioner has not disclosed, by which unfair means and corrupt practice the respondent contested the election. Though the petitioner has alleged that the officers and Presiding Officers were belonging to Kurmi caste, helped the respondent for using unfair means but neither the name of such Returning Officers or Presiding Officers nor particulars of unfair means have been alleged.

(g) That allegations in respect of bogus voting are without any particulars.

(h) That in respect of Electronic Voting Machine (for short 'EVMs'), the allegations are made of tempering but no particulars are furnished. In absence of which, no cause of action arose to the petitioner for filing this election petition. That the allegations in the petition that there was difference in the votes at the time of tallying but no particulars in this regard has been furnished, even the names of counting Agents and Polling Officers alleged to threatened are not mentioned.

(i) That no document has been filed or supplied to the respondent, though the petitioner has relied upon the documents in the election petition, in absence of which, no reply to the election petition can be filed.

(j) That the petitioner has not signed and verified each page of the petition in the manner prescribed. The petitioner has also not signed the affidavit which has been filed in support of the election petition. The copy supplied to the respondent does not disclose that the petitioner was identified by any person. The copy supplied to the petitioner is not the correct copy of the affidavit filed alongwith the election petition.

On the aforesaid grounds, it is stated by the respondent that the present election petition which has been filed without particulars and material facts may be dismissed or Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the election petition be directed to be deleted.

2. Petitioner herein in spite of seeking time initially on 4-9-2009 for two weeks, thereafter on 9-10-2009 by way of last opportunity and on 13-11-2009 on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- has not filed reply of this application. Ultimately on 4-













































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top