Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
ALOK VERMA, J.
PREMCHAND GUDDU — Appellant
Vs.
PROF. CHINTAMANI MALVIYA — Respondent
E.P. No. 33 of 2014
Decided on : 24-09-2015
Order 7 Rule 11 - Election Petition - Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - [KEYWORD] - Election Petition - Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act 1951 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the requirements of an election petition under Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act 1951, emphasizing the need for full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. The court also considered the distinction between material facts and material particulars, and the necessity of disclosing material facts to establish a complete cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition alleging various corrupt practices during the Lok Sabha election, including malfunctioning of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), distribution of voter slips before the prescribed date, and personal allegations against the petitioner. The respondent raised objections stating that the petition did not disclose any cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action as it failed to provide full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices, and the material facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action were not adequately pleaded.
Issues: The main issue was whether the election petition disclosed a cause of action as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in various judgments to determine the sufficiency of the election petition, emphasizing the need for full particulars of corrupt practices and the distinction between material facts and material particulars.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition at the preliminary stage, finding that it did not disclose any cause of action. The substance of the order was to be intimated to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the House of People, and an authenticated copy of the order was to be sent to the Election Commission without delay.
Alok Verma, J.
This order shall govern disposal of I.A. No.3318/2015, which is an application under Order 7, Rule 11 r/w section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. This application is filed by the respondent No.1, who is a returned candidate from Lok Sabha Constituency No.22 Ujjain (M.P). A general election for Lok Sabha was held in the months of March, April and May, 2014. The petitioner also contested from the same constituency as nominated candidate of Indian National Congress. Apart from the petitioner and respondent No.1, ten other candidates also contested the election. They are arraigned as respondents No.2 to 11. This petition is filed alleging various corrupt practices during the election amongst which it is stated that the respondent No.1 was working on the post of professor in Vikram University, Ujjain. His resignation was not accepted according to law and for this, the petitioner filed an objection which was not properly decided. It is further alleged that one of the polling center of Nagoda Khachrod Assembly Constituency No.212, it was observed by agents of the petitioner that the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) was not working properly and vote caste in favour of any other party was going to Bharti Janta Party. About the malfunctioning of EVMs news was published in various newspapers. The petitioner also filed complaints in respect of these machines, however, no action was taken. It is further alleged that voter slips were distributed much before the date fixed for its distribution at Mahidpur Assembly Constituency No.22 at Booth No.3. This was against the guidelines issued by Election Commission. The petitioner lodged complaints in this respect, but no action was taken.
3. It is further alleged that several baseless scandalous and personal remarks against the petitioner by one Sonu Gahlot who was President of Ujjain Municipal Corporation were made during a T.V. interview against the petitioner. He spoke many unethical words about the petitioner and thereby committed illegal and corrupt practice by exercising undue influence in free exercise of electoral right under section 100 (b)(d)(ii)(iv) and under section 123 (2), 123(4) and also orders passed by the Election Commission of India. In this regard, a copy of the DVD containing recordings of said facts and documents demonstrating action against the said person are filed with the petition. It is further alleged that there is significant discrepancy in Form No.17-C given at the end of polling on 24.04.2014 and Form No.17-C given at the time of counting on 16.05.2014. For this also several complaints were filed, but of no avail. It is also avert that the respondent No.1 working as professor in Vikram University, Ujjain. During the election, the university staff is engaged on election duty which was never done before this was to help the respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, when the result was declared he secured 3,31,438 votes while 6,41,104 votes were casted in favour of the respondent No.1. On these grounds, it is alleged that process of election was not fair and healthy and, therefore, this petition is filed for following reliefs: -
(i) To declare election of respondent No.1 as void.
(ii) To declare the petitioner as duly elected returned candidate.
(iii) To award appropriate punishment to those found to be involved in corrupt practice and pass such order.
4. These averments and pleadings, according to respondent No.1 do not disclose any cause of action. Accordingly, the application I.A. No.3318/2015 is filed raising following four grounds:-
(i) The petitioner has not disclosed any cause of action in the petition and in the absence of cause of action, the petitioner does not disclose any cause of action.
(ii) The Chief Election Commissioner and returning officer were not made party in the petition who are necessary parties.
(iii) The material facts were suppressed by not disclosing a final outcome of complaints filed by the petitioner and his agents to the
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
