IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Pankaj Sanghvi – Appellant
Versus
Shankar Lalwani – Respondent
Election Petition No. 41 of 2019
Decided On : 27-09-2022
C.P.C. - Election Petition - Section 100 (2) Representation of People's Act, 1951 - Section 81, Section 83 (1) (c), Section 81(3), Section 100(1)(d)(iv) - Rule 56-D of the Rules - Instructions/orders dated 13.10.2017 and 21.05.2019 - VVPAT paper slips - Random selection of polling stations - Non-compliance of Election Commission's orders - Non-joinder of necessary party - Delay in filing the election petition
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application for dismissal of the Election Petition, alleging non-compliance with the prescribed period of 45 days and mandatory provisions of the Act of 1951. The petitioner rebutted the grounds raised and the allegations levelled in the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was filed within the limitation period and that the Returning Officer was not a necessary party. The court also noted that the election petition lacked specific case-centric objections and material facts, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Delay in filing the election petition, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, non-joinder of necessary party, lack of specific case-centric objections and material facts
Ratio Decidendi: The petition was filed within the limitation period, and the Returning Officer was not a necessary party. The election petition lacked specific case-centric objections and material facts, leading to its dismissal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and dismissed the Election petition.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on I.A.No.9524/2019, which is an application filed by the respondent Shankar Lalwani under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. read with Section 100 (2) Representation of People's Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1951) for dismissal of the Election Petition.
2. The aforesaid application has been filed by the respondent alleging that the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed beyond the period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 81 of the Act of 1951. It is submitted that the result of the Parliamentary election of 2019 were declared on 23.5.2019; whereas the election petition was presented before this Court on 8.7.2019, which is on 47th day. It is also submitted that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 83 (1) (c) of the Act of 1951, as proper affidavit has not been filed in support of the Election Petition and in fact two affidavits have been filed which is not the requirement of the law and thus, on this account also, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. It is also alleged that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, as the identical copy of the petition has not been supplied to the respondent as the copy of the petition is not signed by the petitioner on each page and every page and it has not been attested as the true copy of the petition.
4. Another ground is non-joinder of the necessary party. It is alleged that the petition has been filed by the petitioner only on the ground of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act 1951, which provides that an Election Petition can be filed if there is non-compliance of any provisions of the Constitution or of the Act of 1951 or any Rules or order made under the said Act; whereas in the petition, the petitioner has made allegations against the Returning Officer for not following the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India for mandatory counting and matching the results of VVPATS and CUs from randomly polling stations. And other allegations have also been levelled against the Returning Officer. In such circumstances, the Returning Officer is necessary and proper party for disposal of this petition and in his absence the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. The respondent has also contended that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to file this election petition as the petition itself is vague, as the total margin of votes with which the respondent has won the election are 547754 votes and there is no pleadings in this regard as to how the alleged non-compliance of the Election Commission's order could have materially affected the elections specially when the petitioner has alleged deliberate negligence against the Returning Officer without impleading him as a party. Thus, it is submitted that the election petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed at this stage only as the trial of the Election Petition before this Court would only lead to wastage valuable time of this Court.
6. Reply to the aforesaid application has been filed by the election petitioner-Pankaj Sanghvi, rebutting the grounds raised and the allegations levelled in the aforesaid application.
7. So far as the issue of delay in filing the election petition is concerned, Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the 45 days from the date of declaration of election would be on 08.07.2019; whereas the petition has been filed on 09.7.2019 as on 08.7.2019, there was Sunday and the petition was filed on the next working day i.e. on 09.7.2019, the Monday, thus, it is submitted that the petition was well within limitation.
8. In respect of the other grounds raised by the respondent are concerned, it is submitted that petitioner has pleaded all the relevant facts in the election petition in accordance with law and the affidavits filed are also duly signed and properly verified in accordance with the Act of
Election petitions must provide specific allegations of procedural violations to maintain cause of action; vague claims without factual substantiation are insufficient.
An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to demonstrate grounds under the Representation of People Act; failure to do so results in dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of....
An election petition must contain concise material facts and particulars as per the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; failure to do so results in dismissal.
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts; omission of a single material fact leads to dismissal for lack of cause of action.
Election petitions must provide concise statements of material facts; failure to do so results in rejection as they do not constitute a complete cause of action.
Important Point :Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.
An Election Petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold for minor defects; substantial compliance is sufficient, particularly for curable technical defects under the Representation of the People Ac....
The election petition must contain concise material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice, and failure to disclose even a single material fact would entail dismissal of the election peti....
Election petitions must contain precise and material facts, especially concerning alleged corrupt practices, as mandated by Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.