Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Jarat Kumar Jain, J.
Paras v. Chaitanya Kashyap and others
Election Petition No.18 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 5.1.2015
Held : It is nowhere prescribed that the candidate has to disclose his permanent and present residential address in the nomination form. It is evident from the details of immovable properties and details of Bank Accounts shown in serial No.7(a) and 7(b) of nomination form. That respondent No.1 is permanent resident of Ratlam. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No.1 has mentioned correct residential address in nomination form.
It is quite apparent that a criminal case can be said to be pending and initiated only after cognizance has been taken for any offence by a Magistrate or charges have been framed therein and not before that.
It is clear that the advertisement does not contain full facts, but it cannot be said that the advertisement is false.
Accordingly, the petition does not disclose cause of action or a triable issue and the material facts in regard to alleged corrupt practices are also missing.
Thus, the petition deserves to be rejected on both the grounds as no issue can be raised for trial in absence of complete, precise and specific pleadings in respect of alleged corrupt practices.
The petition stands rejected under Order VII rule 11(a) of the Code for want of any cause of action. 1984 CrLJ 1277, AIR 1970 SC 1153 and (1990)2 SCC 189 discussed. (1995)1 SCC 684, (2012)3 SCC 64 and AIR 1957 SC 503 referred to. (1976)3 SCC 252 followed.
yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 123¼4½ rFkk 83¼1½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-7 fu-11 rFkk /kkjk 151 && izR;FkhZ Ø-1 dk fo/kkulHkk ds fy, fuokZpu vk{ksfir && ;kfpdk ds ukaetwj fd, tkus ds fy, vkns’k 7 fu;e 11 ds v/khu vkosnu nkf[ky fd;k && dgha Hkh fofgr ugha fd vH;FkhZ dks uke&funsZ’ku QkeZ es vius LFkk;h rFkk orZeku irs izdV djuk gS && izR;FkhZ Ø-1 us Bhd vkoklh; irk mfYyf[kr fd;k && vkijkf/kd ekeyk yafcr rFkk vkajHk fd;k x;k] dsoy eftLVªsV }kjk fdlh vijk/k ds laKku ysus rFkk mlesa vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds ckn] dgk tk ldrk gS rFkk iwoZ es ugha && foKkiu esa laiw.kZ rF; varfo”V ugh ysfdu mls fEkF;k ugh dgk tk ldrk && ;kfpdk okngsrqd ;k fopkj.kh; fook|d izdV ugha djrh gS && rFkk vfHkdfFkr Hkz”V vkpj.k ds laca/k esa rkfRod rF; Hkh yqIr && vfHkdfFkr Hkz”V vkpj.k ds laca/k es iw.kZ ;Fkkor~ rFkk fofufnZ”V vfHkopu ds vHkko esa fopkj.k ds fy, dksbZ fook|d ugh mBk;k tk ldrk && okngsrqd ds vHkko esa ;kfpdk ukeatwj dh xbZA vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g dgh Hkh fofgr ugh fd vH;FkhZ dks viuk LFkk;h rFkk orZeku irk uke&funsZ’ku QkeZ es izdV djuk gSA ;g uke&funsZ’ku QkeZ ds Øela[;k 7¼d½ rFkk 7¼[k½ esa n’kkZ, x, LFkkoj laifŸk rFkk cSad [kkrs ds C;kSjsa ls lqLi”V gSA izR;FkhZ Ø-1 jryke dk LFkk;h fuoklh gSA bl izdkj] ;g Li”V gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 us uke&funsZ’ku QkeZ esa lgh vkoklh; irk mfYyf[kr fd;k gSA iwoksZDr foospu ds lkFk ;g fcYdqy izdV gS fd vkijkf/kd ekeyk yafcr RkFkk vkjaHk fd;k x;k dsoy eftLVªsV }kjk fdlh vijk/k ds laKku ysus rFkk mlesa vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds ckn dgk tk ldrk gS iwoZ es ughaA ;g Li”V gS fd foKkiu es iw.kZ rF; varfo”V ugh] ysfdu ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd foKkiu feF;k gSA rn~uqlkj] ;kfpdk okngsrqd ;k fopkj.kh; fook|d izdV ugh djrh gS RkFkk vfHkdfFkr Hkz”V vkpj.k ds lac/ka esa rkfRod rF; Hkh yqIr gSA bLk izdkj] ;kfpdk nksuksa vk/kkjksa ij ukeatwj fd, tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd vfHkdfFkr Hkz”V vkpj.k ds laca/k es iw.kZ] ;Fkkor~ rFkk fofufn”V vfHkopu ds vHkko esa fopkj.k ds fy, dksbZ fook|d ugh mBk;k tk ldrkA ;kfpd lafgrk ds vk-7 fu-11d ds v/khu fdlh Hkh okngsrqd ds vHkko es ukeatwj dh tkrh gSA 1984 lhvkj ,y ts 1277] , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 1153 rFkk ¼1990½2 ,l lh lh 189 foosfprA ¼1995½1 ,l lh lh 684] ¼2012½3 ,l lh lh 64 rFkk , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 503 fufnZ”VA ¼1976½3 ,l lh lh 252 vuqlfjrA
1. This order shall govern disposal of I.A. No.6731/2014, i.e., an application under Order VII rule 11 r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the Code), for rejection of election petition inter alia on the ground of nondisclosure of cause of action or a triable issue.
2. Assembly elections of State of Madhya Pradesh held on 25.11.2013, in the election, Petitioner and Respondent No.4 (Dr. Arun Purohit) were in a fray as independent candidate whereas the respondent No.1 was the official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party. The election results were declared on 8.12.2013 and the respondent No.1 was declared elected. In this petition, election of respondent No.1 to M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No.220 Ratlam City (general) has been challenged on the grounds that (i) respondent No.1 has furnished incorrect information in regard to his residential address; and (ii) has concealed the fact in regard to pendency of criminal case in nomination form; and (iii) he committed corrupt practices by publishing a false statement of fact in newspaper.
3. The respondent No.1 has filed an application under Order VII rule 11 r/w section 151 of Code for rejection of election petition on two grounds: (i) nondisclosure of cause of action or a triable issue in the petition and (ii) material facts and full particulars in regard to corrupt practices are missing. To clarify the grounds it is stated that the respondent No.1 has neither made any false declaration nor has concealed anything while submitting his nomination form. Respondent No. 4 was an independent candidate in the election and there is no averment in the petition that respondent No.4 had published the advertisement in the newspaper at the instance of respondent No.1. However the publication was not false therefore it does not fall within the definition of corrupt practices. Thus from a bare perusal of the pleadings made in the petition and the documents filed along with the petition, it is clear that the respondent No.1 has neither guilty for noncompliance of any rules or orders made under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein after “Act”) nor he has committed any corrupt practices. Therefore, the petition does not disclose any cause of action and make out any ground to set aside the election of respondent No.1. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
4. In the reply of the application, the petitioner stated that he has clearly and specifically pleaded the material facts regarding the corrupt practices committed by respondent No.1 and it is evident from the nomination form that respondent No.1 has furnished incorrect residential address and concealed the information in regard to pending criminal case. Thus he is guilty for false declaration and corrupt practices. It is further stated that it is settled principal of law that at the time of deciding the application under Order VII rule 11 of Code, the Court is required to consider only the averments of election petition (plaint) and documents. Whereas the Court cannot consider the reply of the petition and documents filed along with the reply. The grounds raised in the election petition are matter of fact and therefore it can be proved by evidence in the trial. Thus, the application deserves to be dismissed.
5. In order to appraise the merits of rival contentions in a right perspective, it would be desirable to deal with the grounds raised in the application as one by one.
Ground No.1 :
[There is no cause of action or a triable issue in the petition.]
6. According to the Petitioner in the nomination form (Annexure P-5) respondent No.1 incorrectly mentioned that he is the resident of Vishaji Mansion Gali, M.G. Road Ratlam, whereas he is resident of 4th Floor, Hermes House, 78, Khan A.G. Khan Road, Worli seaface Mumbai, as shown in pan card (annexure P-1) and an abstract of details of company registered with the Registrar of Companies (Annexure P-2). Thus he has furnished an in
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
