Strict compliance with the requirements of section 81(3) of the RP Act is mandatory, and substantial compliance cannot be invoked in cases of no compliance.

ORDER : – This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No. 5452/2019 filed by Respondent No. 1 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with sections 80, 81 and 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (in short “RP Act”).

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the instant application are that, the Election Commission of India issued a press note dated 6-10-2018 and declared the schedule for the General Elections to the State Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh. As per the schedule, the General Elections were to take place on 230 Assembly seats. The instant Election Petition relates to Legislative Constituency No. 213 (Mahidpur, District - Ujjain).

3. The Election Commission of India after the conclusion of the counting of votes declared respondent No. 1 as Returned Candidate whereas the present Election Petitioner was placed 2nd in the list of candidates based on number of votes received by each candidate. After notification of Respondent No. 1 as Returned Candidate on 11-12-2018, the present election petitioner filed petition in terms of section 81 of the RP Act alleging multiple misconducts on the part of Respondent No. 1 while the moral code of conduct was in effect and allegedly the same were sufficient for declaring the election of Respondent No. 1 as null and void.

4. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 27-2-2019 and invited the respondents to submit their written statement.

5. The respondent No. 1 entered appearance on 29-4-2019 thereafter on 19-6-2019, the counsel for Respondent No. 1 alleged that, he did not receive the copy of Annexure P/5 which is a CD along with the copy of the Election Petition served on him by this Court. Upon this plea of the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to supply such annexure to the Respondent No. 1. Later, the order sheet dated 26-6-2019 indicates that the learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1 acknowledged the receipt of CD one day prior to the date of hearing and consequently sought more time to file the reply of the election petition.

6. The order sheet dated 25-7-2019 indicates that the learned counsel for the petitioner was served with IA No. 5452/2019 seeking rejection of the Election Petition. In return the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file his response to such application which was eventually filed on 6-11-2019 bearing Document No. 6948/2019.

7. Broadly, the contents of the application filed by the respondent No. 1 allege non-compliance of section 81 and section 83 of the RP Act leading to the submission which has its foundation under section 80 of the RP Act i.e. This election cannot be called in question as the election petition has not been presented in adherence with Part VI Chapter II of the RP Act. In order to substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 invited attention of this Court to the copy of the Election Petition which was served upon the Respondent No. 1 to contend that, neither the pages of the copy of the Election Petition bears attestation by the Election Petitioner that, the same is true copy of the original nor bears the original signature of the Election Petitioner, thereby violating section 81(3) of the RP Act.

8. In addition to the above, it has also been submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the petition suffers from non-compliance of section 83(2) of RP Act, as the same mandates the annexure of the petition to be signed and verified in the same manner as the petition, which is lacking in the instant case. Since the CD presented by the petitioner and marked as Annexure P/5 has not been verified and attested in the same manner as the petition. Moreover, the petitioner did not attach the CD along with the copy of the Election Petition furnished for the sake of Respondents, which renders the non-adherence of Part VI Chapter II of the RP Act more grave and thus petition be dismissed.

9. Per contra learned senior counsel for the Electi