SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 249

2003(2) Supreme 335
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Jamal Uddin Ahmad -Appellant
versus
Abu Saleh Najmuddin & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1860 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6098/2002)
With
C.A. No. 1861 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7648/2002)
And
Civil Appeal No. 1862 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8354/2002)
Decided on 28-2-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R.K. Jain, Gopal Subramanium, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate (NP), S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocates, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy, Pankaj Kalra, Manoj Goel, Brij Bhushan, Chinmoy A. Khaladkar, S.K. Nandy, B. Aggarwalla, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Krishna Sarma, Ms. Asha G. Nair, V.K. Sidatharan, N.G.J.R. Luwang, Nitin S. Tambwekar and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Presentation of Election Petition before Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Gauhati who presented it to Designated Election Judge with his note is properly presented under RPA.

Headnote:Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 80, 81 and 86-Election petition by respondent against election of appellant-Preliminary objection that it was not properly presented-Election petition was presented before Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner of the High Court of Assam under Chapter VIIIA of the High Court Rules-Contention that election petition should have been presented directly either before the Designated Election Judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court; and that presentation before Stamp Reporter is invalid under Section 81 of the Act and is liable to be dismissed in limine-Designated Election Judge overruled this preliminary objection and held election petition was properly presented relying on Chapter VIIIA of High Court Rules-Appeal to

       Held : Even in the absence of Chapter VIII-A in Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.the Gauhati High Court Rules there would have been nothing wrong in the High Court or the Chief Justice authorizing any of its officers to receive the election petition presented to it so as to enable exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Chapter II of the Act. The Gauhati High Court thought it proper to incorporate Chapter VIII-A in its Rules in view of the amendment made in Chapter II of the Act. (Para 19)

       Held finally : We do not find any fault with the election petitions having been presented to and received by the Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Gauhati. The learned Designated Election Judge has rightly overruled the preliminary objection preferred by the respondents. All the appeals are held devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed accordingly and with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5000/-. (Para 27)

       

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2. A common question of law arises for decision in all the three appeals. It would suffice to state the facts of one of the cases to have a glimpse of the backdrop events in which the question has emerged for decision. In Civil Appeal No. 1860/2003 (arising out of SLP(C) No.6098/2002) the appellant contested the last election to legislative assembly from No.5 Badarpur Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam held on 10.5.2001. The appellant was declared duly elected. On 27.6.2001 the contesting respondent filed an Election Petition under Section 80/81 of the Representative of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter RPA, for short), laying challenge to the appellant s election. The Election Petition was presented before Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner of the High Court of Assam. The Stamp Reporter received the election petition, conducted the preliminary scrutiny thereof, and, along with his note, put up the same before the Designated Election Judge. The appellant (respondent before the High Court) on being noticed and having been served with a copy of the electron petition, filed an application raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, seeking its dismissal in limine under Section 86 of the Act for non-compliance with Section 81 of the Act. The gist of the plea raised by the appellant is that the Election Petition should have been presented either before the Designated Election Judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court; and that the presentation before the Stamp Reporter is invalid under Section 81 of the Act; and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed without trial. The learned Designated Election Judge has overruled the objection preferred by the appellant and held that the election petition was properly presented. In forming this opinion the learned Designated Election Judge has relied on Chapter VIIIA of the High Court Rules which will be noticed hereafter at an appropriate place.

3. The facts in the other two appeals are similar and it would suffice to state that similar objections that were preferred by the respondents in the High Court (appellants before us) disputing the validity of the presentation of the respective election petitions, which had been presented before the Stamp Reporter, have been overruled.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties led by the learned Senior Advocates on both the sides. We are satisfied that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.

5. The submissions made on behalf of the appellants led by Shri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, may briefly be noticed. It was submitted that under Article 329 of the Constitution no election to either House of Parliament or to the Houses of the Legislature of the State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by an appropriate Legislature. The RPA, provides for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the Houses of the Legislature of each State, and for the decision of disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections, amongst other things. Chapter II deals with presentation of election petitions to High Court. Under Section 80, no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part. Under Section 80-A, the Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court. Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a Single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice, shall, from time to time, assign one or more judges for that purpose. Section 81 provides for presentation of petitions, and Section 86 deals with the consequences of non-compliance. These provisions are reproduced hereunder:-

"81. Presentation of petitions.-(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be p



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top