Judgement The petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 2000 was a candidate for the 48-Churachandpur Assembly Constituency in the 7th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election. In the said election, respondent No. 1 was declared elected from the said constituency on 26-2-2k. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were also the candidates for the said constituency in the said election. Respondent No. 5 is the Chief Electoral Officer, State of Manipur, and Respondent No. 6 was the Returning Officer for the Churachandpur Assembly Constituency. Respondents No. 7 to 10 were the Presiding Officers of different Polling Stations in the said constituency. In the Election Petition, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 and his agents/men committed various corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act,1951, (for short, "the RPA 1951") as narrated in the Election Petition and that the election of the respondent No. 1 was liable to be declared void under Section 100 of the RPA, 1951. The petitioner has inter alia prayed that the election of the respondent No. 1 be declared void and that the petitioner be declared elected from the said Assembly Constituency. 2. On 27-4-2k, the Court admitted the Election petition and issued notices to the respondents. The respondent No. 1, returned candidates, has appeared and filed Civil Misc. (Election) Case No. 3 of 2000. In the said Misc. Case, it has been stated in Paragraph 5 that copies of the affidavit supplied to the Respondents in support of the corrupt practices mentioned in the election petition did not contain due verification and attestation by the oath Commissioner or by the prescribed authority and that such omission in the copies of the affidavit supplied to the respondents as true copies was not a curable irregularity and the election petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Respondent No. 1 has also filed in Court the summons and the copy of the election petition received by him along with the summons to show that the copy of the affidavit along with the copy of the election petition does not contain verification or affirmation by the Oath Commissioner by the prescribed authority. Respondent No. 1 has also filed in Court the summons and the copy of the election petition received by him along with the summons to show that the copy of the affidavit along with the copy of the election petition does not contain verification or affirmation by the Oath Commissioner by the prescribed authority. Similarly, respondents No. 5 and 6 have filed a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the election petition stating in paragraph 1 thereof that the copies of the affidavit of the petitioner dated 9-3-2k in Form 25 prescribed by Section 83 of the RPA, 1951 accompanying the copies of the election petition furnished to the respondents-5 and 6 do not contain the affirmation by the Oath Commissioner. Along with the said preliminary objection, the summons from the Court and the copies of the election petition and the accompanying affidavit have also been filed to show that in the copies of the affidavit accompanying the copies of the petition as served on the said respondents No. 5 and 6, affirmation by the Oath Commissioner of the prescribed authority has been omitted. The Court therefore took up hearing on the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the respondents No. 1, 5 and 6. 3. At such hearing on the preliminary objection, Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951, provided that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. He contended that the said sub-section (3) of Section 81 requires that a true copy of the election petition and a true copy of the affidavit have to be filed along with the election petition for each of the respondents. He further submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the RPA, 1951, provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951. According to Mr. He further submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the RPA, 1951, provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951. According to Mr. Nandakumar Singh, therefore, where a copy of the election petition and a copy of the affidavit filed along with the election petition under sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951, contain omission of vital parts which exist in the original election petition, there is non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 and the High Court is under a mandate under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the RPA, 1951 to dismiss the election petition at the threshold. Mr. Nandakumar argued that since the copy of the affidavit accompanying the copy of the election petition served along with the summons the respondent No. 1 does not contain verification or affirmation by the Oath Commissioner or the prescribed authority as indicated in Form 25 under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, (for short, Rules, 1961) the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951). In support of his aforesaid submission, he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Shipra v. Shantilal Khoiwal, AIR 1996 SC 1691 : (1997) 10 SCC 294 , in which the Supreme Court held that true copy of the election petition supplied to the returned candidate should as a sine qua non contain the due verification and attestation by the prescribed authority and certified to be true copy by the election petitioner in his own signature and if such verification or attestation by the prescribed authority is omitted in the copy of the election petition furnished to the returned candidate, it cannot be said that a true copy of the election petition has been furnished to the returned candidate and the statutory requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 81 is not complied with and the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Mr. Mr. Nandakumar Singh further submitted that in T. M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, AIR 1998 SC 2939 , a slightly different question arose as to whether the name and designation of the Notary and the seal and stamp of the Notary also were required in the copy of the affidavit accompanying the copy of the election petition furnished to the respondents and as to whether in the absence of such name, designation, seal and stamp of the Notary in the copy of the affidavit as furnished to the respondents, there was non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951, and the Supreme Court was not too sure as to whether the principle indicated in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra) would apply to the facts of the case in T. M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and took a view that the matter required consideration by a larger Bench. Thereafter, the (sic) constitution Bench held in its decision in the said case of T. M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, (1999) 4 SCC 274 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2939 ), that the defect found in the true copy of the affidavit in Dr. Shipras case was not merely the absence of the name of the Notary or his seal and stamp, but a complete absence of Notarial endorsement of the verification as well as absence of affirmation or oath by the election petitioner. Mr. Nandakumar Singh explained that the Constitution Bench in T. M. Jacob v. C. Poulose (supra) has not in any way overruled or altered the law as laid down in Dr. Shipras case. He therefore vehemently argued that the election petition should be dismissed by the Court at the threshold for non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the RPA, 1951 in accordance with the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court. 4. The aforesaid arguments were reiterated by Mr. A. Nilmani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6. He submitted that the respondent No. 5 is the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur and the respondent No. 6 was the Returning Officer for Churachandpur Assembly Constituency and in the election petition various allegations have been made against the said respondents 5 and 6. According to Mr. A. Nilmani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6. He submitted that the respondent No. 5 is the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur and the respondent No. 6 was the Returning Officer for Churachandpur Assembly Constituency and in the election petition various allegations have been made against the said respondents 5 and 6. According to Mr. Nilmani Singh, therefore, although the respondents No. 5 and 6 were not candidates in the election for the said Assembly Constituency they are likely to be affected by the judgment delivered by the Court on the said allegations against respondents No. 5 and 6. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Shipra, Harcharan Singh and T. M. Jacob (supra) to show that law is now well-settled that where the copy of the affidavit accompanying the copy of the election petition furnished to the respondent does not contain affirmation or oath by the election petitioner or Noterial endorsement of the verification, there is no substantial compliance with the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA, 1951 and the election petition is liable to be dismissed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 86 of the RPA, 1951. 5. Mr. H. Nabakumar Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the affidavit accompanying the election petition in which the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice is required to be furnished under the proviso to S. 83(1) of the RPA, 1951 snd if there is any defect in the said affidavit there is only non-compliance of S. 83 of the RPA, 1951. Under S. 86 (1) the High Court has not been empowered to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance of the provisions of S. 83 of the RPA, 1951 and thus the election petition cannot be dismissed in the present case if there is any defect in the copy of the affidavit accompanying the copy of the election petition furnished for the respondents. He also argued that under sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA 1951 copy of the election petition for the respondents attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the Election petition is to be filed and the said sub-sec. He also argued that under sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA 1951 copy of the election petition for the respondents attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the Election petition is to be filed and the said sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 does not provide that copy of the affidavit accompanying the election petition attested by the petitioner to be true copy is also to be filed. Accordingly if there is any defect in the copy of the affidavit filed along with the election petition, the Court cannot hold that there is non-compliance with the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA, 1951. In support of his aforesasid argument, he cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagannath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 , in which it has been held that in cases where the election law does not prescribe the consequence or does not lay down penalty for non-compliance with certain procedural requirements of that law, the election tribunal has to proceed with the trial of the case, According to Mr. Nabakumar Singh, since there is no provision in the RPA, 195 empowering the High Court to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 of the RPA, 1951, the Court cannot dismiss the present petition and has to proceed with the trial of the case, He also relied on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Brij Mohan v. Z.A. Ahmad, AIR 1964 All. 523 , to the effect that the provisio to S. 83 (1) of the RPA, 1951 is directory and not mandatory and if affidavit as required by the said proviso is filed at the time of trial of the election petition, the said proviso is complied with and the election cannot be dismissed. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singoral, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , wherein it has been observed that since S. 83 is not one of three provisions mentioned in S. 86 (1), ordinarily it cannot be construed as mandatory unless it is shown to be an integral part of the petition under S. 81. According to Mr. According to Mr. Nabakumar Singh, affidavit is not an integral part of the election petition under S. 81 and therefore defect in an affidavit or in the copy of the said affidavit furnished for the respondent cannot be a ground for dismissal of the election petition. In particular, Mr. Nabakumar Singh referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case of F.A. Sapa v. Singora (supra) in para 28 of the judgment that an allegation involving corrupt practice must be viewed very seriously and the High Court should ensure compliance with the requirements of S. 83 before the parties go to trial. Mr. Nabakumar Singh submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora was followed by the Calcutta High Court in Dibyendu Biswas v. Rabin Deb, AIR 1998 Cal 99 , and the Calcutta High Court has held in the said case that even though there may be defective verification or defective affidavit which may not be fatal, the High Court should ensure its compliance before the parties go to trial, and found that in the case before it the affidavit had been filed before the High Court even before the written statement was filed and the mere fact that the affidavit had not accompanied the election petition did not appear to be fatal. Mr. Nabakumar Singh vehemently argued that the petitioner was guided by the bar provisions of the RPA, 1951 and the said bare provisions nowhere provided that the election petition which does not comply with the proviso to S. 83 (1) of the RPA, 1951 is to be dismissed by the High Court in limine. He further pointed out that after the said defect in the copy of the affidavit furnished for the respondents came to the knowledge of the election petitioner, the election petitioner removed the said defect in the copy of the affidavit furnished for the respondents by serving copies of the affidavit in Form 25 with necessary endorsements of the election petitioners oath taken before the Oath Commissioner of the Advocates of the respondents on 7-5-2k even before the respondents filed their written statements. Regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and Harcharan Singh Josh v. Hari Kishan (supra), cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-1, 5 and 6 Mr. Regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and Harcharan Singh Josh v. Hari Kishan (supra), cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-1, 5 and 6 Mr. Nabakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the said decisions are per incuriam inasmuch as the Supreme Court has inadvertently not considered its earlier decision of a three-Judge Bench in the case of F.A. Sapa v. Singora (supra) that the defeat in the affidavit in the prescribed Form-25 can be cured and the High Court should ensure its compliance before the parties go to trial. In this context, Mr. Nabakumar Singh relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bhoor Singh v. District Magistrate, Barmer, 1993 Cri. LJ 2217, for the proposition that where there are two conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court on the point by Benches consisting of the same number of Judges then the earlier judgment given by the Supreme Court has to be followed as precedent because it subsists until it is expressly overruled by a larger Bench. According to Mr. Nabakumar Singh, therefore, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora and the later judgments of the Supreme Couret in Dr. Shipra and Harcharan Singh Josh (supra) being in conflict with each other and having been rendered by Bench consisting of same number of Judges, this Court should follow the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora. He also cited the decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : ( AIR 1988 SC 1531 ), for the proposition that if a decision has been given per incuriam, the Court can ignore it. According to Mr. Nabakumar Singh, the provisions of S. 86 of the RPA, 1951, being penal in nature have to be strictly construed as has been held by the Supreme Court in Manohar Joshi v. N.B. Patil, AIR 1996 SC 796 , and S. 86 (1) so construed by the Court does not warrant dismissal of the present election peition for defect in the affidavit or copy of the affidavit furnished under the proviso to S. 83 of the RPA, 1951. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger, (2000) 1 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 16 ) for the proposition that dismissal of the election petition for want of material particulars was unwarranted. 6. Sections 81 (3), 83 and 86 (1) of the RPA, 1951, to which the counsel for the parties have referred, are quoted herein below.: 81 (3). Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition." "83 (1) Contents of petition. - (1) An election petition - (a) shall contain a consice 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 and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings : Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition." "86. Trial of election petition - (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of S. 81 or S. 82 or S. 117." A reading of S. 81 (3) quoted above would show that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. In M. Kamalam v. A.S. Mohammad, AIR 1978 SC 840 , the Supreme Court has held that an election petition for the purpose of aforesaid sub-sec. In M. Kamalam v. A.S. Mohammad, AIR 1978 SC 840 , the Supreme Court has held that an election petition for the purpose of aforesaid sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 is confined not only to election petition proper but also includes a schedule or annexure contemplated in sub-sec. (2) of S. 83 and a suppporting affidavit referred to in the proviso to S.83(1). Thus, the affidavit accompanying the election petition in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of corrupt practice and particulars thereof referred to in the proviso to S. 83(1) is also part of the election petition for the purpose of sub-sec. (3) of S. 81. Therefore, where the copy of the affidavit accompanying the election petition furnished for the respondents is not a true copy of the affidavit accompanying the original election petition filed in Court, there is no compliance with the sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of RPA, 1951. The contention of Mr. Nabakumar Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioner that affidavit is not part of the election petition for the purpose of sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA, 1951, is not correct. 7. Section 86(1) of the RPA, 1951, quoted above, provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of S. 81 of the RPA, 1951. Accordingly, where the copy of the affidvit accompanying the election petition furnished for the respondents is not a true copy of the affidavit accompanying the original election petition filed in court, the High Court is under a mandate under S. 86 (1) to dismiss the election petition. 8. In the present case, at the bottom of the affidavit accompanying the original election petition filed in Court, the Commissioner of Affidavits, Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, Manipur, on 9-3-2k has recorded the affirmation made before him by the declarant and has stated that the declarant is identified by Kh. Samarjit, Advocate, and has certified that he has read over and explained the contents to the declarant and that the declarant seemed perfectly to understand the same. This affirmation and certificate have not been copied out in the copies of the affidavit accompanying the copies of the election petition furnished to the respondents No. 1, 5 and 6 and this fact has not been disputed by the election petitioner. This affirmation and certificate have not been copied out in the copies of the affidavit accompanying the copies of the election petition furnished to the respondents No. 1, 5 and 6 and this fact has not been disputed by the election petitioner. Thus,the copies of the affidavit accompanying the copies of the election petition filed along with the original election petition and affidavit for the purpose of the said respondents No. 1, 5 and 6 do not contain the affirmation and the certificate by the Commissioner of Affidavits. The question as to whether, absence of such affirmation or verification by the Oath Commissioner in the copies of affidavit accompanying the copies of election petition furnished for the respondents amounted to non compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) of the RPA, 1951, arose for decision in the case of Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, (supra), and the Supreme Court held that it amounted to such non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) and that election petition was liable to be dismissed for such non-compliance under S. 86(1) of the RPA, 1951. Paragraph-11 of the said judgment in Dr. Shipras v. Shantilal Khoiwal, AIR 1996 SC 1691 is quoted hereinbelow, (at pages 1694-1695) : "In Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati, AIR 1992 Bombay 227, the present question had arisen. In that case the copy contained omission of vital nature, viz., the attestation by the prescribed authority. The High Court had held that the concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended to overlook serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of the true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said be a true copy. We approve of the above view. Verification by a Notary or any other prescribed authority is a vital act which assures that the election petitioner had affirmed before the notary etc. that the statement containing imputation or corrupt practices was duly and solemnly verified to be correct statement to the best of his knowledge or information as specified in the election petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof; that reinforces the assertions. that the statement containing imputation or corrupt practices was duly and solemnly verified to be correct statement to the best of his knowledge or information as specified in the election petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof; that reinforces the assertions. Thus affirmation before the prescribed authority in the affirmation and the supply of its true copy should also contain such affirmation so that the returned candidate would not be misled in his understanding that imputation of corrupt practices was solemnly affirmed or duly verified before the prescribed authority. For that purpose, Form 25 mandates verification before the prescribed authority. The object appears to be that the returned candidate is not misled that it was not duly verified. The concept of substantial compliance of filing the original with the election petition and the omission thereof in the copy supplied to the returned candidate as true copy cannot be said to be a curable irregularity. Allegations of corrupt practices are very serious imputations which, if proved, would entail civil consequences of declaring that he become disqualified for election to a maximum period of six years under S. 8-A, apart from conviction under S. 136 (2). Therefore, compliance of the statutory requirement is an integral part of the election petition and true copy supplied to the returned candidate should as sine qua non contain the due verification and certified to be true copy by the election petition in his/her own signature. The principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in the fact situation." The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Shipra was followed by the Supreme Court in Harcharan Singh Josh, AIR 1996 SC 3350 . paragraph 2 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow (at page 3351) : "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 aformidable objection which merits acceptance in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Dr. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal (1996) 4 JT (SC) 67 ; 1996 AIR SCW 1772. Therein the copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent was not attested by the Oath Commissioner. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal (1996) 4 JT (SC) 67 ; 1996 AIR SCW 1772. 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 solomnly affirmed and duly verified before the prescribed authority. For that purpose, Form 25 prescribed by S. 83 requires verification before prescribed authority. The concept of substantial compliance has no application in such a case. It is seen that 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." The aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court make it abundantly clear that where the copies of the affidavit accompanying the copies of the election petition furnished for the respondents did not contain the copies of the affirmation or verification by Oath Commissioner or prescribed authority, the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) of the RPA, 1951. 9. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, F.A. Sapa v. Singora and Manohar Joshi v. N.B. Patil, and the decisions of Allahabad High Court in Brij Mohan v. Z.A. Ahmad, and of Calcutta High Court in Dibyendu Biswas v. Rabin Deb, (supra), on which great reliance was placed by Mr. Nabakumar Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioner were not the cases of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) but cases of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 of the RPA, 1951. A plain reading of S. 86 (1) of the RPA, 1951, quoted above, would show that the High Court has not been empowered under the said S. 86(1) to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of S. 83 of the RPA, 1951. It is for this reason that the Courts have held in the aforesaid cases cited by Mr. It is for this reason that the Courts have held in the aforesaid cases cited by Mr. Nabakumar Singh that the court cannot dismiss an election petition where the verification or the affidavit as provided in S. 83 (1) is either not furnished or is defective and that such defect in the election petition relating to verification or the affidavit can be allowed to be removed by the petitioner before commencement of the trial. But, as indicated above, objection of the respondents No. 1, 5 and 6 is that the copies of the affidavit accompanying the copies of the election petition served through the Court on the said respondents are not the true copies of the affidavit accompanying the original election petition filed in Court. Hence, what is complained of by the said respondents No. 1, 5 and 6 is non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) and not non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 (1) of the RPA, 1951. Whereas, non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 (1) does not entail dismissal of the election petition under S. 86 (1) before the trial of the election petition, non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) of the RPA, 1951, warrants such dismissal at the threshold under the said S. 86 (1) of the RPA, 1951. 10. Coming now to the contention of Mr. Nabakumar Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioner that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Shipra and Harcharan Singh Joshi, are per incuriam inasmuch as the decision of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora has been inadvertently not considered, in the case of F.A. Sapa v. Singora, there was no complaint of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) of the RPA, 1951, and the complaint was with regard to non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 (1) of the RPA, 1951, and the Supreme Court has held that S. 83 is not one of three provisions mentioned in S. 86 (1) and, therefore, ordinarily it cannot be construed as mandatory and the election petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 of the RPA, 1951. In paragraph-29 of the said judgment in the case of F.A. Sapa v. Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , the Supreme Court clearly held that so far as non-compliance with S. 81 (3) is concerned, the consequence was fatal. In the language of the Supreme Court (at page 1575) : "....It must be remembered that non-compliance with the requirement of sub-sec. (1) or (3) of S. 81 can prove fatal in view of S. 86 (1) of the RP Act. See Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram (1974) 4 SCC 237 : AIR 1974 SC 1185 , M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Handa, (1983) 2 SCC 473 : AIR 1983 SC 558 , Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidynath Yadav, (1984) 2 SCR 278 : AIR 1984 SC 305 , Rajender Singh v. Usha Rani, (1984) 3 SCC 339 . AIR 1984 SC 956 and U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, (1989) 4 SCC 482 : AIR 1990 SC 924 . It is quite obvious from these decisions that the requirements of S. 81 (3) are mandatory and failure to comply with them would render the petition liable to summary dismissal under S. 86 (1) of the RP Act." (Emphasis supplied) The decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Shipra and Harcharan Singh Joshi do not in any way conflict with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in F. A. Sapa v. Singora. Rather, they are consistent with the aforesaid decision in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, because it was held in the said decisions in Dr. Shipra and Harcharan Singh Joshi that absence of affirmation by the Oath Commissioner or the prescribed authority in the copy of the affidavit furnished to the respondents amounted to non compliance with the provisions of S. 81 (3) and the election petition was liable to be dismissed summarily under S. 86(1) of the RPA, 1951. The contention of MR. Nabakumar Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioner that the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Shipra and Harcharan Singh Joshi are per incuriam is therefore misconceived and not tenable. 11. For the reasons stated above, Civil Misc. (Election) Case No. 3 of 2000 is allowed, and the election petition is dismissed under S. 86 (1) for non-compliance with the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA, 1951. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. For the reasons stated above, Civil Misc. (Election) Case No. 3 of 2000 is allowed, and the election petition is dismissed under S. 86 (1) for non-compliance with the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 81 of the RPA, 1951. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.