IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Hemant Katare – Appellant
Versus
O.P.S. Bhadoriya – Respondent
Election Petition No. 5/2020
Decided On : 03-02-2022
Election Petition - Representation of People Act - 80, 80-A, 81, 100 (d)(iv), 101 - 86(1)
Fact of the Case:
The election petitioner sought to declare the respondent's election as illegal and void, and to be declared as a returned candidate. The respondent filed for dismissal of the election petition due to non-impleadment of necessary parties, and the election petitioner sought an amendment to delete the prayer for declaration as a returned candidate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition was liable to be dismissed due to non-impleadment of necessary parties as per Section 82 of the Representation of People Act.
Issues: Non-impleadment of necessary parties, amendment of prayer clause
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election petition must comply with Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, and any amendment that takes the petition out of the mandatory provisions of the Act cannot be allowed.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties as enumerated under Section 82 of the Representation of People Act.
JUDGMENT
1. This election petition has been filed under Sections 80, 80-A, 81, 100 (d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 seeking following relief:-
'1. To declare that the election of the Respondent from 12 Mehgaon Assembly Constituency is illegal and void and hence the same be set aside by allowing the election petition and;
2. To declare the election petitioner as a returned candidate for obtaining the next highest number of votes and;
3. To call upon the CCTV Footage (video recording) of the Polling Booth prayed by the Petitioner in his representations, from time to time;
4. To take appropriate civil/criminal action against the Respondent for violating MCC and RP Act;
5. Any other direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.'
2. I.A.No.5087/2021 has been filed under Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 for dismissal of the election petition whereas I.A.No.5869/2021 has been filed for amendment in the election petition.
3. Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 reads as under:-
'[86. Trial of election petitions.- (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.
Explanation.-An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this subsection shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of section 98.
(2) As soon as may be after an election petition has been presented to the High Court, it shall be referred to the Judge or one of the Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of election petitions under sub-section (2) of section 80A.
(3) Where more election petitions than one are presented to the High Court in respect of the same election, all of them shall be referred for trial to the same Judge who may, in his discretion, try them separately or in one or more groups.
(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub- section and of section 97, the trial of a petition shall be deemed to commence on the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the High Court and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.
(5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition.
(6) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(7) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial.]'
4. It is not out of place to mention here that except the returning candidate, nobody else have been impleaded as respondent.
I.A.No.5087/2021 has been filed for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that all the contesting candidates have not been impleaded as respondent because in case if the election petitioner seeks declaration that he should be declared as an elected candidate, then each and every contesting candidate is a necessary party as required under Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Since all the contesting candidates have not been impleaded as a
Amin Lal vs. Hunna Mal (AIR 1965 SC 1243 : (1965) 1 SCR 393)
B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India and others
Balwan Singh vs. Lakshmi Narain (1960) 22 ELR 273 : (1960) 3 SCR 91 : AIR 1960 SC 770
Basappa vs. Ayyappa (1959 SCR 611
Chaturbhuj Chunnilal vs. Election Tribunal
D.P. Mishra vs. Kamal Narayan Sharma (1970) 2 SCC 369 : (1971) 1 SCR 8
F.A. Sapa and others vs. Singora and others
Har Swarup vs. Brij Bhushan Saran (AIR 1967 SC 836 : (1967) 1 SCR 342)
Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others
K. Venkateswara Rao and another vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and others
Kallappa Laxman Malabade vs. Prakash Kallappa Awade
Michael B. Fernandes vs. C.K. Jaffer Shariff and others
Mohan Raj vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia and others
Patangrao Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and others
Raj Narain vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC 850
Ram Partap Chandel vs. Chaudhary Lajja Ram (1998) 8 SCC 564)
Samant N. Balakrishna vs. George Fernandez (1969) 3 SCC 238 : (1961) 3 SCR 603
Compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, particularly Section 82, is mandatory for an election petition. Amendments that take the petition out of the mandatory provisions o....
Non-joinder of a candidate accused of corrupt practices in an election petition results in its mandatory dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Non-joinder of a necessary party in an election petition under ROPA is fatal, leading to mandatory dismissal despite the merits of the allegations.
An election petition can be summarily dismissed for failure to disclose a cause of action or comply with statutory requirements, including the need for material facts, under the Representation of Peo....
An election petition is liable to be dismissed if it does not disclose a cause of action or if essential material facts are omitted, as prescribed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Important Point :Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.
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.