Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Radheshyam Darsheema – Petitioner
Versus
Kunwar Vijay Shah and Others – Respondents
Election Petition No. 14 of 2019
Decided On : 22-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad.
For the Respondents: Shri Mrigendra Singh, Shri Lal Hitendra Singh, Shri Navtej Singh Ruprah.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 83(1)(a), 83(1)(b), 86(1) - Election petition filed against the elected candidate on grounds of corrupt practices alleged before becoming a candidate - Petition dismissed for non-compliance with statutory requirements - Material facts relating to the alleged corrupt practices were found to be vague and insufficient, failing to disclose a cause of action. (Paras 20, 22, 44)
(B) Election law - Corrupt practice - Clear definition and requirements under the Act must be adhered to, including the filing of sufficient particulars, or the election petition must be rejected - Candidate status defined as subject to the filing of nomination papers. (Paras 39, 40, 44)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial order and election petition information. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's allegations and demands. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent's objections and grounds for dismissal. (Para 5 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. application of cpc powers in election petitions. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. requirements for maintaining an election petition. (Para 19 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. time of candidate status relevant to corrupt practices. (Para 26 , 37 , 42) |
| 7. conclusion of dismissal of election petition. (Para 44) |
ORDER :
1. This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No. 8710 of 2019 filed by Respondent No. 1 Kunwar Vijay Shah on 16.07.2019 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with section 86(1) of “Representation of the People Act, 1951” (referred to as “Act 1951”) for dismissal of the Election Petition No. 14 of 2019 as not maintainable under section 86 of the Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
2. Notification U/s 30 of R.P. Act, 1951 was issued by Election Commission for Legislative Assembly election. Voting was held on 28.11.2018 and the result was declared on 11.12.2018. Respondent No. 1 Kunwar Vijay Shah, Sponsored by the “Bhartiya Janta Party” is the returned candidate for Constituency No. 176, Harsood, District Khandwa (Received 80556 votes). Petitioner Radheshyam, sponsored by “Gondwana Gantantra Party” who is the looser in that election (Received only 709 votes), filed main election petition under section 80 read with section 100 of the Act, 1951 on 25.01.2019.
3. As per petitioner, respondent no. 1 organized a function of Bhagwat Katha during the period of 26.10.2018 to 01.11.2018 and also celebrated his birthday on 01.11.2018. The Election Code of Conduct was implemented from 14.10.2018 and during the existence of Election Code of Conduct, the aforesaid function was organized by the respondent no. 1. Approximate expenditure has been mentioned by the petitioner in Para 11(1) to 11(18). The petitioner also wrote a letter Annexure P- 34 to transfer the officers, who were posted more than 5 years to 25 years. But as the respondent was holding the post of Minister, therefore, he misused his power therefore any employee was not transferred. The information regarding EVM machines was also sought by the petitioner vide Annexure A-35 but the aforesaid information was not given. The respondent no. 1 organized the party meeting in the aforesaid Bhagwat Katha function. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition for declaring:-
(i) the election of respondent no. 1 as void.
(ii) to declare the petitioner as a returned candidate.
(iii) the respondent no. 1 be debarred for 6 years to contest any election.
4. The notice was served upon respondent no. 1, then he filed I.A. No. 8710 of 2019 on 16.07.2019 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with section 86(1) of the Act, 1951. As per respondent, the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable under section 86 of the Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The respondent submitted that:-
(i) The election petition has been filed only upon the ground of commission of corrupt practice as stipulated under section 123 of the Act, 1951. The instant petition lacks in material fact constituting the cause of action required under the Act, 1951. The present petition does not fulfill the mandatory requirement of the law. The petition does not contain a concise statement of material fact on which the petitioner relies and therefore does not disclose a triable issue or cause of action. The so called specific allegations of corrupt practice as contained in Para 6 to 17 do not meet out the basic requirement, which could constitute cause of action as required by law. The material facts as to how the information came to the knowledge of the petitioner pertaining to various incidents, as mentioned in the referred paras, is absolutely missing; whereas the same is preliminary requirement for maintainability of the petition. Even the material particulars are absent in the election petition. Thus, it suffers from noncomplianc
