Substantial compliance with election petition requirements is sufficient to avoid dismissal; defects in affidavits are curable and do not automatically invalidate the petition.

ORDER

This Election Petition has been filed under Sections 80, 100(1)(b)(d) and 123 of Representation of People Act.

2. The Petitioner has challenged the election of respondent no.1 for the post of M.L.A. from 177 Khandwa (SC) Constituency, Khandwa. The voting for the said post was held on 17-11-2023 and votes were counted on 3^rd of December 2023 and the respondent no.1 was declared as elected. The respondent no.1 got 109067 votes, whereas the Election Petitioner got 71018 votes.

3. The present Election Petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the Caste Certificate relied upon by the respondent no.1 was not issued as per law, therefore, the returning officer should have rejected her nomination paper. Thus, it is the case of the Petitioner, that respondent no.1 by supplying incorrect information and filling up of nomination papers on the basis of document which has no legal sanctity had cheated the voters to caste votes in her favour. Such an act of the respondent No.1 has materially affected the election of the petitioner. Another ground raised by Election Petitioner is that the respondent no.1 had given false information with regard to her dependents.

4. Initially, the respondent no.1 was proceeded ex-parte. Issues were also framed. However, thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings and by order dated 2- 7-2024, the ex-parte proceedings were set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. The cost was deposited by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has not filed her written statement so far.

5. I.A. No. 14204 of 2024 has been filed by respondent no.1 for dismissal of Election Petition under Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 on the ground that the copy of the notice which has been supplied to the respondent no.1 is not in accordance with provisions of Section 81(3) of Representation of People Act. It is submitted that although every page of notice bears the signature and verification, but it does not bear the attestation that it is a true copy. Furthermore, the verification is not in accordance with provisions of Order 6 of CPC, i.e., verification of pleadings. It is submitted that the Election Petitioner has not challenged that the respondent no.1 does not belong to SC category. His only contention is that the caste certificate which has been issued by the competent authority and which was filed along with the nomination paper was not in accordance with law. It is further submitted that digital caste certificate was not filed. The caste certificate should have been issued mentioning the name of her father, but the caste certificate relied upon by the Election Petitioner contains the name of her husband. It is also submitted that provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is also applicable to the Election Petitions. Since, it has not been disputed by the Election Petitioner that the respondent no.1 belongs to S.C. category, therefore, her election cannot be set aside. Thus, it is submitted that the Election Petition filed by the Election Petitioner does not disclose Triable Issues. The affidavit in support of allegations of corrupt practice is not in accordance with form 25 of Representation of People Act. It is further submitted that merely because in earlier election, the respondent no.1 had given an information of 2 children only, would not mean that false information with regard to number of children was given by the respondent no.1. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon Judgments passed by Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 Supp SC 315, V. Narayanaswamy Vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 294, Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh reported in (2000) 8 SCC 191, Harishanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi reported in (2001) 8 SCC 233, L.R. Shivaramagowda Vs. T.M. Chandrashekar reported in (1999) 1 SCC 666, Sopan Sukhdev Sable Vs. Charity Commissioner reported in (2