The verification of election petitions must comply with statutory requirements, where minor procedural defects do not invalidate the petition at the threshold.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the returned candidate in the general election held on 08.12.2020 for the Kollam Municipal Corporation from the Alattukavu Division. The respondents are the other candidates contested in the election. The petitioner was elected by a margin of four votes. The election of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.1 in O.P.(Election) No.3/2021 before the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Kollam.

2. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the election petition on two grounds (1) the election petition has not been verified as provided in Section 167 (1)(c) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) (2) the afÏdavit as mandated in the proviso to (1)(c) has not been filed.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, held that the election petition has been verified as required by the Statute and the afÏdavit filed as provided in Rule 62 of the Kerala Municipality (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, is a substantial compliance of the requirements of the Statute.

4. The Trial Court, therefore, dismissed the petition filed by the returned candidate as per order dated 27.10.2021. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

5. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Manu, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 167 (1)(c) of the Act mandates that the election petition shall be signed and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for verification of pleadings. It is further submitted that the election petitioner has failed to verify the schedule appended to the election petition, which is a mandatory requirement as provided in (2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-compliance of this requirement is sufÏcient to dismiss the election petition as not maintainable.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that respondent No.1/election petitioner has verified the election petition as provided in the Statute and the afÏdavit as required has been filed along with the Election Petition. The learned counsel further contended that an Election Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold only when it is found that the election petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Section 165, or Section 166 or Section 191 of the Act.

8. In the Election Petition, respondent No.1 has alleged corrupt practices against the returned candidate. It is alleged that the petitioner/returned candidate and his agent paid cash to many voters to exercise their franchise in his favour. It is further alleged that the returned candidate had offered employment to many unemployed persons in the constituency with the intention of influencing them and getting their votes cast in his favour.

9. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the Election Petition on the ground that precise facts as to the corrupt practices were not averred in the Election Petition. It is also contended that the Election Petition lacks the statutory requirements regarding verification and filing of the afÏdavit.

10. The questions that fall for consideration are :-

(a) whether respondent No.1 verified the Election Petition as provided in Section 167 (1)(c) of the Act (b) whether filing of an afÏdavit as provided in Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC is mandatory to maintain the Election Petition.

11. Section 167 of the Act refers to the contents of an Election petition. reads thus:-

“167. Contents of petition.-(1) An election petition,-

(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice that the date and pla