JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Mr S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ishori, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2.

[2] The present application had been filed with the prayer for dismissing the connected Election Petition No. 19 of 2022 on the following grounds:-

(a) The copy of the election petition furnished to the applicant (respondent No. 1 in the connected Election Petition) is not a true copy of the election petition filed before the registry of this court as the copy furnished to the applicant does not bear any attestation including seal, affirmation and signature of the Oath Commissioner specially in the affidavit accompanying the election petition. Hence, the said copy of the election petition served to the applicant is not a true copy of the election petition filed in this court.

(b) At page 5 and page 42 of the election petition, the petitioner made addition and alteration by way of handwriting without any attestation and verification by any competent authority to authenticate the addition and alteration.

(c) Even though the election petitioner at paragraphs 34 of his election petition alleged commission of corrupt practice by the applicant, no affidavit in the prescribed form in support of such allegation of corrupt practice has been filed as provided under Section 83 of the RP Act.

[3] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the affidavit accompanying the copy of the election petition furnished to the applicant did not bear any attestation including seal, affirmation and signature of the Oath Commissioner, hence, the said copy of the election petition served to the applicant cannot be said to be a true copy of the election petition filed before this court. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the said affidavit filed in support of the pleadings made in the election petition should be attested and verified by an Oath Commissioner and thereafter, a true copy of the same should be served to the respondents otherwise the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provision of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act (“RP Act” for short). In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Harcharan Singh Josh Vs. Hari Kishan” reported in (1997) 10 SCC 294 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“2. It is not necessary for us to go into the grounds on which the election petition was dismissed by the High Court. Suffice it to state that the objections raised by the respondent regarding non- supply of the true copy of the affidavit is a formidable objection which merits acceptance in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Shipra (Dr) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal. Therein the copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent was not attested by the Oath Commissioner. This Court, after considering the entire case-law, held that the affirmation before the prescribed authority in the affidavit and the supply of its true copy is mandatory so that the returned candidate would not be misled in his understanding that imputation of the corrupt practices were solemnly affirmed and duly verified before the prescribed authority. For that purpose, Form 25 prescribed by Section 83 requires verification before the prescribed authority. The concept of substantial compliance has no application in such a case. It is seen that the copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent does not contain the affirmation by the Oath Commissioner. Under these circumstances, the defect is not a curable defect. Therefore, the dismissal of the election petition on this ground is sustainable in law.

[4] In connection with the second ground, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that at page 5 and page 42 of the election petition, the election pe