C. R. PAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Misc. Case arises out of Election Petition No. 9 of 1995 at the instance of respondent No. 1 praying to take up the Issue No. 9 as a preliminary issue. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the election petition challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from 74 (S. C.) Gopalpur Constituency in the election held on 9-3-1995 on the grounds that the respondent No. 1 adopted corrupt practices during that election as enumerated in the election petition. The respondent No. 1 on receiving the notice along with copy of election petition filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the election petition as laid is not maintainable both on facts and in law; there has been no compliance of the requirements of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the election petition is defective the same having not been properly attested; the petition is not in proper form and that the affidavit in support of allegation of corrupt practices are not in order inasmuch as no specific date, time and name of person and source of information/knowledge have been indicated therein. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, this Court framed nine issues for determination. Out of the issues framed, Issue No. 9 which forms the subject matter of consideration in this Misc. Case runs as follows:-"whether the allegations of corrupt practice can be struck off for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 83 of the R. P. Act. "in this Misc. Case the respondent No. 1 has prayed to take up issue No. 9 as a preliminary issue. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 81 and proviso to Section 83 (1) (c) it is imperative that the election petition containing allegation of corrupt practice shall also accompany with an affidavit in support of the allegation of such corrupt practices and the particulars thereof in form 25 as stipulated under Rule 94-A of Conduct of Eduction Rules, 1961. It is therefore, contended that for non-compliance of such provisions which are mandatory in nature, the allegations about corrupt practices made in the election petition should be struck off. ( 4 ) THE election petitioner filed his objection in the Misc. It is therefore, contended that for non-compliance of such provisions which are mandatory in nature, the allegations about corrupt practices made in the election petition should be struck off. ( 4 ) THE election petitioner filed his objection in the Misc. Case contending that Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act is not attracted to the instant case as the power available to the Court under Section 86 of the R. P. Act can be exercised only for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81, 82 and 117 of the said Act. It is also contended that the defect in verification can be removed and that in a case where verification and affirmation is not in proper form, such affidavit can be filed at a later stage, the defect being curable. It is further contended that the prayer is not entertainable at this stage since a number of witnesses have already been examined and as the petition does not contain any specific instance of prejudice resulted to the respondent No. 1. It is also the stand of the election petitioner that the respondent No. 1 having admitted to have printed the alleged calendars containing portrait of Jagannath Temple and Lord Jagannath with the party symbol "wheel" which is an instance of corrupt practice, his contention that absence of verification on the copy of the election petition served on him is prejudicial to him is not entertainable. The election petitioner, therefore, submits to refuse the prayer and dismiss the Misc. Case. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the election petitioner relying of Muraka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, AIR 1964 SC 1545 and F. A. Sapa v. Singora reported in AIR 1991 SC 557 contended that the defect in the verification pointed out by the respondent is curable and on that ground a petition cannot be dismissed. In AIR 1964 SC 1545 the appellant who was one of the respondents in the two election petitions before the Election Tribunal raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petitions. In AIR 1964 SC 1545 the appellant who was one of the respondents in the two election petitions before the Election Tribunal raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petitions. The Election Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection whereupon the appellant filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan with the prayer to quash the said order and direct the Election Tribunal to dismiss the election petitions on the grounds that they do not comply with certain mandatory provisions of the R. P. Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the said writ petitions. The appellant thereafter preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court. In the said case one of the defects on verification as pointed out by the appellant was that the averments made in some of the paragraphs of the petition were true to the personal knowledge of the election petitioner and the averments in some other paragraphs were verified to be true on the basis of advice and information received by the election petitioner from legal and other sources. The election petitioner did not state in so many words that the advice and information received were believed by him to be true. The Apex Court accepting the view taken by the Election Tribunal held that the aforesaid defect in the verification was a matter which came within Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 and the defect could be removed in accordance with the principle of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also held that such a defect did not attract the sub-section (3) of Section 90 in as much as that sub-section does not refer to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 as a ground for dismissing an election petition. (Sections 86 to 92 to Chapter III of the R. P. Act, 1951 have been substituted by Sections 86 and 87 of the R. P. (Amendment) Act, 1966 ). In F. A. Sapa etc. v. Signora ( AIR 1991 SC 1557 ) (supra) the Apex Court reiterating the view expressed in AIR 1964 SC 1545 (supra) held that mere defect in the verification of the election petition is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition and the petition cannot be thrown out solely on that ground. In F. A. Sapa etc. v. Signora ( AIR 1991 SC 1557 ) (supra) the Apex Court reiterating the view expressed in AIR 1964 SC 1545 (supra) held that mere defect in the verification of the election petition is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition and the petition cannot be thrown out solely on that ground. It is also held that since Section 83 is not one of the three provisions mentioned in Section 86 (1), ordinarily it cannot be construed as mandatory unless it is shown to be an integral part of the petition under Section 81 of the R. P. Act. In the above context, the Apex Court has also observed as follows :-"it would, therefore, be seen that if a schedule or annexure is an integral part of the election petition, it must be signed by the petitioner and verified, since it forms part of the election petition. The subject-matter of sub-section (2) is thus a schedule or annexure forming part of the election petition and hence it is placed in Section 83 which deals with contents of an election petition. Similarly, and for the same reasons, the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83 sub-section (1) also forms part of the election petition. The election petition is in truth and reality one document consisting of two parts, one being the election petition proper and the other being the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83 sub-section (1 ). The copy of the election petition required to be filed under the first part of sub-section (3) of Section 81 would therefore, on a fair reading of that provision along with Section 83 include a copy of the affidavit. " ( 6 ) IN view of the above principle, the affidavit required under the proviso to Section 83 (1) (c) forms an integral part of the election petition and the election petitioner is under obligation to serve a copy of the same attested to be true copy under his own signature. In both the cases cited above there were defects in the verification in the affidavit and copies thereof were served. In the instant case the respondent contends that the copy served on him did not contain the affirmation made before the prescribed authority. Similar question came for consideration in Dr. In both the cases cited above there were defects in the verification in the affidavit and copies thereof were served. In the instant case the respondent contends that the copy served on him did not contain the affirmation made before the prescribed authority. Similar question came for consideration in Dr. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal reported in AIR 1996 SC 1691 . The Apex Court after taking into consideration several case laws including the case reported in AIR 1964 SC 1545 approved the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in Purshottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati reported in AIR 1992 Bom 227 . In Purshottam v. Returning Officer the copy contained omission of vital nature viz. , the attestation by the prescribed authority. The High Court held that the concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended to overlook serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of a true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said to be a true copy. The Apex Court while approving the view taken by the High Court observed as follows :"verification by 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 of 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 affidavit 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. 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. Allegation of corrupt practices are very serious imputations which, if proved, would entail civil consequences of declaring that he became disqualified for election to a maximum period of six years under Section 8-A, apart from conviction under Section 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 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/her own signature. The principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in the fact situation. "the Apex Court further held as follows (Para 12 of AIR 1996):-"the contention that the election petition cannot be dismissed under Section 86 at the threshold on account of the omission on the part of the Registry of the High Court to point out the same as per its procedure cannot be countenanced. Lapse on the part of the Registry is not an insurance to deny to the returned candidate the plea that the attestation of the affidavit and its certification to be a true copy is an integral part of the pleadings in the election petition. Sections 81, 83 (1) (c) and 86 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules and Form 25 are to be read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so read, if the Court finds on an objection, being raised by the returned candidate, as to the maintainability of the election petition the Court is required to go into the question and decide the preliminary objection. In case the Court does not uphold the same, the need to conduct trial would arise. If the Court upholds the preliminary objections, the election petition would result in dismissal at the threshold, as the Court is left with no option except to dismiss the same. In case the Court does not uphold the same, the need to conduct trial would arise. If the Court upholds the preliminary objections, the election petition would result in dismissal at the threshold, as the Court is left with no option except to dismiss the same. "in Harcharan Singh Josh v. Hari Kishan reported in (1996) 4 Supreme 407 ( AIR 1996 SC 3350 ) the Apex Court has laid down the principles as follows :-"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 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. "in R. P. Moidutty v. P. T. Kunju Mohammed reported in, 1999 0 AIR (SCW) 4528 the respondent in his written statement pointed out the defect in the verification by raising a plea in that regard. The objection was pressed and perused by arguing the same before the Court. However, the petitioner persisted in pursuing the petition without proper verification. The Apex Court while considering the above circumstances observed as follows :-"in our opinion, unless the defect in verification was rectified, the petition could not have been tried. For want of affidavit in required form and also for lack of particulars, the allegations of corrupt practice could not have been enquired into and tried at all. In fact, the present one is a fit case where the petition should have been rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law as to pleadings. " ( 7 ) IN the present case the returned candidate in his written statement as well as in the Misc. Petition has taken the stand about the non-compliance of the legal provisions. " ( 7 ) IN the present case the returned candidate in his written statement as well as in the Misc. Petition has taken the stand about the non-compliance of the legal provisions. It is also contended that the copy of the election petition containing the allegation of corrupt practice served on the returned candidate does not show that the election petitioner verified the statements made in the petition by solemn affirmation or on oath. The copy of the affidavit supplied to the returned candidate does not contain the copy of the affirmation made before the prescribed authority. In order to substantiate his contention, the returned candidate has also filed the copy of the election petition and the copy of the affidavit served on him. The election petitioner does not dispute that the affidavit is not in the prescribed form. He also does not dispute that the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate does not bear the affirmation. It is also not disputed that the copy of the affidavit served on the returned candidate does not contain the affirmation made before the prescribed authority. On the other hand, the election petitioner's case is that the defects pointed out are curable. Besides, it is also contended that when trial has already commenced, objections raised cannot be entertained at this stage. In this context, the learned counsel for the election petitioner also cited some case laws where this Court refused to interfere at the preliminary stage. But continuance of the proceeding in the instant case will amount to abuse of the process of the Court as the copies supplied to the returned candidate do not contain the affirmation made before the prescribed authority and the same makes the election petition liable for dismissal at the threshold, since such a defect is not curable as has been held by the Apex Court in Dr. (Smt.) Supra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal (AIR 1996 SC 1651) (Supra ). ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Misc. Case is allowed and consequently the selection petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed