Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 204 (ORI)

Gyanendra Kumar Tripathy v. Bhagirathi Badajena

2012-04-18

I.MAHANTY

body2012
ORDER : The election petition has been filed by one Gyanendra Kumar Tripathy seeking to challenge the election of Respondent No.1-Bhagirathi Badajena (petitioner herein) as the returned candidate of the election from 113, Bhubaneswar (North) Assembly Constituency, inter alia, on the ground of improper and illegal acceptance of nomination of Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 9 and also on the ground of improper and illegal rejection of the nomination paper of the election petitioner-Gyanendra Kumar Tripathy. After notices were issued to the respondents, the returned candidate, namely, Bhagirathi Badajena (Respondent No.1 in the election petition) filed the aforementioned Misc. Case under Sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 7, Rule-11 and Order No.6 of Rule-16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to dismiss the election petition under the aforesaid provisions. 2. Sri P. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the returned candidate, namely, Bhagirathi Badajena (petitioner in this Misc. Case) submitted that the election petitioner, namely, Gyanendra Kumar Tripathy did not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 81 of the Representation of People 1951 Act (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act). It is submitted that Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the 1951 Act is mandatory in nature and the said provision clearly requires that, every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and more importantly, such copy was required to be attested by the election petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Respondent No.1 that he has received a copy of the election petition along with the schedules appended therein containing 111 pages, not even a single page of the election petition contains any endorsement by the election petitioner that it is a true copy of the original election petition presented before the Hon’ble Court. It is further asserted that, the said pages of the election petition also do not contain the attestation by the petitioner on each page to be a true copy of the election petition. Similarly, it is submitted that four annexures, namely, Schedules-A, B, C and D contain any endorsement by the election petitioner in his own hand as true copy of the original petition filed before the Hon’ble Court. 4. Similarly, it is submitted that four annexures, namely, Schedules-A, B, C and D contain any endorsement by the election petitioner in his own hand as true copy of the original petition filed before the Hon’ble Court. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is averred that this defect in the election petition is fatal and not curable and on this ground alone, the election petition should be dismissed at the threshold for non-compliance of Section 86(3) of the 1951 Act. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the return candidate-Bhagirathi Badajena, that Section 83(1)(b) of the 1951 Act provides that an Election Petition has to contain full particulars of any corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. It is further submitted that Section 83(1)(c) further provides that, the election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of the pleadings. Proviso to Sub-Section 1(c) of Section 83 further requires 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 along with the detailed particulars thereof. 6. It is also submitted that the election petitioner in Paragraphs-5(a) and 6 of the election petition has alleged corrupt practice against Respondent No.1 (petitioner in the present Misc. Case) as well as the Polling Officer and the Presiding Officer, but the petitioner has failed to provide the necessary detailed particulars about either the date, place or time of the commission of such alleged corrupt practice, either by Respondent No.1 or by the Polling Officer or the Presiding Officer. It is, therefore, averred that on a plain reading of Paragraphs-5(a) and 6 of the election petition, it would be clear that while vague allegations of corrupt practices have been made in Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the election petition, neither the detailed particulars of any corrupt practice nor the names of the alleged parties who committed such corrupt practices have been disclosed. 7. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted on behalf of the returned candidate that, Rule-94(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules) stipulates that the affidavit in consonance with the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the 1951 Act should be in Form No.25 appended to the 1961 Rules. It is submitted that no such affidavit in the prescribed Form No.25 in support of the allegation made in Paragraphs-5(a) and 6 have been filed along with the election petition nor the copies have been served on by the election petitioner through this Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the election petition is barred by law especially under the proviso of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, since the original election petition does not contains any such affidavit, nor any verification as required under the law. The bald assertion made in the verification not being supported by any detailed particulars clearly does not comply with the requirements of Section 83(1)(b) and (c) of the 1951 Act read with Rule-94(a) of the 1961 Rules. Further since no affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practice have been filed along with the election petition, such mistake is clearly a fatal to the proceeding and comes under the sweep of Order 7 and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, such pleadings are to be held unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and prejudiced to Respondent No.1 (returned candidate-Bhagirathi Badajena) and is intended to delay a fair trial of the case and comes within the ambit of Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 81 of the 1951 Act, renders the election petition vitiated in law and prayer has been made in the Misc. Case for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold. 8. In support of the petition filed by the present petitioner-Bhagirathi Badajena (Respondent No.1 in the election petition), an affidavit was filed by him on 8th July, 2011 inclosing therein the original copy of the notice of the election petition, said to have been received by him from the Registry of this Court. Mr. 8. In support of the petition filed by the present petitioner-Bhagirathi Badajena (Respondent No.1 in the election petition), an affidavit was filed by him on 8th July, 2011 inclosing therein the original copy of the notice of the election petition, said to have been received by him from the Registry of this Court. Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the present petitioner-Bhagirathi Badajena, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.(Smt.) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, AIR 1996 SC 1691 and in particular, Paragraph-11 thereof is quoted herein below : 11. 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 a true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said to be a true copy. We approve of the above view. 9. Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party (election petitioner) placed reliance on the objections filed by him to the petition filed by the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in the election petition) under Sections 86 and 87 of the 1951 Act. In the said objection, the opposite party (election petitioner) has denied the assertion made by the petitioner (Respondent No.1) and has stated that the election petition has been filed by him on the grounds specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 100 of the 1951 Act. Mr. Rath asserted that the petition has been filed within the time stipulated and the petition was accompanied by as many copies thereof, as there are respondents mentioned in the election petition and every copy has been attested by the election petitioner under his own signature. It is further asserted that the election petitioner put his signature in each and every copy since those copies were true copies of the original election petition filed by the election petitioner. He further asserted that the entire election petition contains 15 pages apart from the Annexures-A, B, C & D appended thereto and each page bore the signature of the election petitioner. He further asserted that the entire election petition contains 15 pages apart from the Annexures-A, B, C & D appended thereto and each page bore the signature of the election petitioner. It is further submitted that since the copies of the election petition are same and true copies of the original election petition as well as the schedule attached thereto, the election petitioner has attested the same under his own signature. Not writing the words true copy of the petition, cannot be held to be a fatal defect, since the signature of the election petitioner on each page, amounted to substantial compliance of the 1951 Act and Rules thereunder. It is further submitted that the election petitioner has presented the election petition on the ground of illegal and improper rejection of the nomination paper of the election petitioner and illegal and improper acceptance of the nomination papers of Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 9. He asserted that the election petition contains a concise statement of material fact on which the petitioner relies. 10. Mr. Rath further submitted that an affidavit as required in Form No.25 has not been furnished by the election petitioner since the election petition had not been presented on the ground of corrupt practice as enumerated under Sections 123 of the 1951 Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the allegations made in the election petition do not amount to alleging corrupt practice against the petitioner-Respondent No.1 (who has been elected) there is absolutely no requirement for the election petitioner to make any affidavit in Form No.-25 as asserted in the Misc. Case. 11. It is further submitted that the election petition presented by the petitioner is in compliance of Section 81 of the 1951 Act and contains the necessary conditions, statements and material facts on which the election petitioner relies. The election petitioner having attested each and every page of the election petition and schedule attached thereto under his own signature and also have attested the copies of the petition and schedule filed as copies for service of notice on respondents, the requirement of Section 81 of the 1951 Act has been complied with. Accordingly, Mr. Rath submitted that the Misc. Accordingly, Mr. Rath submitted that the Misc. Case filed by the petitioner (Respondent No.1) under Sections 86 and 87 of the 1951 Act read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not bona fide and the same has been filed merely for delay the trial of the election petition and ought to be rejected outright. 12. Learned counsel for both the parties placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad and others, AIR 1964 SC 1027 and in particular, Paragraphs-25 and 26 are quoted hereinbelow : (25) This Court besides left open the question as to whether any part of S.81(3) was directory or whether any portion of it was mandatory. In the present case also, we do not propose to deal with the larger question as to whether S.81(3) or any portion of it is merely directory. In view of the decision of this Court it would be clear that if there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of S.81(3), the election petition cannot be dismissed by the Tribunal under S.90(3). The question then is whether on the facts above-stated, there is or is not a sufficient and substantial compliance with S.81(3). We have already pointed out that the appellant has complied with the following requirements : (1) The petition has been accompanied by the requisite number of copies. (2) The copies that accompanied the petition were true copies. (3) Each of those copies bore the signatures of the petitioner. (26) If the signature of the petitioner whose name is set out in the body of the petition is appended at the end, surely it authenticates the contents of the document. Now in regard to this the learned Judges of the High Court themselves observed after referring to the terms of S.81(3) : No doubt, what is necessary is a substantial compliance with the requirement of attestation. For instance, if it is proved that the election petitioner has signed animo attestendi, and omitted the words true copy by mistake or inadvertently, there is a substantial requirement of the compliance of S.81(3). The same may be said if the relative positions of the words true copy and of the signature one below the other are not correct. For instance, if it is proved that the election petitioner has signed animo attestendi, and omitted the words true copy by mistake or inadvertently, there is a substantial requirement of the compliance of S.81(3). The same may be said if the relative positions of the words true copy and of the signature one below the other are not correct. They however held that as there was no evidence of the signature having been appended animo attestendi, there was non-compliance with S.81(3). The learned Solicitor-General while not disputing the correctness of the observations of the learned Judges just extracted pressed upon us that the signature at the end of the copy was meant only as a copy of that in the original petition and could not satisfy the requirement as to attestation of the copy. He also submitted that the position would have been different if there were two signatures instead of one at the end of the copy, even if the words true copy were omitted to be put down. In that case, he said, one signature could be treated as representing the copy of the signature on the original and the other might be taken to have been made animo attestendi. We do not however consider that there is really need for so much refinement when one has to look at whether there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of this provision. If the signatures now found on the copies were intended to authenticate the document to which it is appended, viz., the copy, it would only mean that the copy did not reproduce the signature in the original. There is no compelling necessity to hold that the signatures were merely intended to be a copy of those on the original in order to spell out a non-compliance with S.81(3), seeing that a signature in original was not needed on the copy and a writing copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. The decision of this Court in Murarkas case, C.A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963, D/-7.5.1963 (SC) is authority for the position that the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy. The decision of this Court in Murarkas case, C.A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963, D/-7.5.1963 (SC) is authority for the position that the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy. In the circumstances, we consider that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of S.81(3) in the petition that was filed by the appellant and the learned Judges were in error in directing the dismissal of the petition. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act was considered by the Constitutional Bench and came to conclude that one has to see whether there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of this provision. If the signatures found on the copies of the petition were intended to authenticate, the document to which it was appended vis-a-vis the copy, and the same amounted to substantial compliance. Their Lordships referred to an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Murarka, C.A. Nos.30 and 31 of 1963, dated 7.5.1963 (SC) and held that, the same is an authority for the position that, the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy and in the circumstances, held that there had been substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act. Learned counsel also submitted that in the present case, the election petitioner has substantially complied with the requirements of Section 81(3) of 1951 Act and has put his signature on each page of the copy supplied to the respondents including Respondent No.1. Therefore, he submitted that the objection raised by the petitioners in this Misc. Case have no legs to stand and should be rejected outright. 14. Mr. Rath also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra, ( AIR 1996 SC 1691 ) (supra) which was relied on by the petitioners in this Misc. Case and submitted that the observation of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-11 of the said judgment was no longer a good law and has been quashed in a latter case of Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subba and others, AIR 2003 SC 51 . Case and submitted that the observation of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-11 of the said judgment was no longer a good law and has been quashed in a latter case of Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subba and others, AIR 2003 SC 51 . In the said judgment and in particular in Paragraph-13 thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the observations made in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra (supra) was no longer good law in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Subbarao, ( AIR 1964 SC 1027 ) (supra) which is quoted hereunder : 13. It is thus clear that the correctness of broad proposition as laid in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra), was doubted in the case of T.M. Jacob as well as Anil R. Deshmukh case (supra). The Constitution Bench in T.M. Jacobs case (supra) has indicated the correct position. Any defect of whatever nature, in the true copy supplied to the respondent would not render the petition liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act. Such defects in supply of true copies are not always incurable. The main consideration which would weigh is that the returned candidate must get a correct idea of the allegations of corrupt practices so that it may be possible to understand and meet the charges levelled against him. The true copy supplied should also reflect that the part of the petition containing the allegations of corrupt practices has been verified and sworn by the petitioner on oath. The fact that the name, stamp, seal and signature of the Notary are not indicated or missing in the true copy is not material nor the absence of stamp of attestation by the Notary. We will deal with the facts of this case in that regard a little later. 15. In course of hearing a query was raised by the Court as to whether in a case where Section 83(1)(c) of the 1951 Act read with Rule 94-A of the Election Rules was not complied with, whether the election petition was liable to be dismissal or only those portions of allegations of corrupt practices would be liable to be struck off and other independent issues may be tried and decided on merits. 16. To this query Mr. 16. To this query Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party (election petitioner) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra, ( AIR 1996 SC 1691 ) (supra) and in particular Paragraph-13 thereof. The relevant portion of the said Paragraph is quoted hereunder : 13. It is true that in Mrs. Shipras case, i.e. C.A.No.6359 of 1994, yet another contention was raised by her, viz., that rejection of her nomination was invalid in law. The High Court has held that even if more grounds were raised assailing the legality of the result of the election declared and if the mandatory requirement of Section 83(1)(c) read with Rule 94-A was not complied with, the entire petition would have entailed dismissal. That view, we are of the firm opinion, is not correct in law. It is well settled that only those parts of the petition which contain allegations of corrupt practices and which are not pleaded in conformity with Form 25 read with Rule 94-A and Section 83(1), alone are required to be struck off and other independent issues are required to be tried and decided on merits. xx xx xx 17. After having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties as noted hereinabove, at the out set, it become necessary to take note of Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act and Rule 94 of the Election Rules : 81. Presentation of petitions. (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. 94. Disposal of election papers. Presentation of petitions. (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. 94. Disposal of election papers. Subject to any direction to the contrary given by the Election Commission or by a competent court or tribunal [(a) the packets of unused ballot papers shall be retained for a period of six months and shall thereafter be destroyed in such manner as the Election Commission may direct;] [(aa) the voting machines kept in the custody of the district election officer under sub-rule (1A) of rule 92 shall be retained intact for such period as the Election Commission may direct and shall not be used at any subsequent election without the previous approval of the Election Commission;] (b) the other packets referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 93 shall be retained for a period of one year and shall thereafter destroyed : [Provided that packets containing the counterfoils of used ballot papers shall not be destroyed except with the previous approval of the Election Commission;] (c) all other papers relating to the election shall be retained for such period as the Election Commission may direct. [94A. Form of affidavit to be filed with election petition. The affidavit referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 83 shall be sworn before a Magistrate of the first class or a notary or a commissioner of oaths and shall be in Form 25.] 18. The next matter that has to be dealt with is to take note of the averments by the election petitioner in Paragraphs-5(A) and 6 which led to contain the allegations of corrupt practice, the same are extracted herein below : 5(A). That the Returning Officer of 113-Bhubaneswar (North) Assembly Constituency has improperly and illegally rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that Serial No. and Part No. of the proposers as mentioned in the voter list were not correctly mentioned in the nomination paper. The Returning Officer has not discharged his duty and obligation empowered to him by the statute. Because Section 33 of the Representation of People Act deals with presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. The Returning Officer has not discharged his duty and obligation empowered to him by the statute. Because Section 33 of the Representation of People Act deals with presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Sub-section 4 of Section 33 states that on the presentation of nomination paper, the returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral rolls. The proviso to Section 33(4) states that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or the nomination paper and to clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the electoral roll numbers of any such person in the electoral roll or the nomination paper, shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll or the nomination paper with respect to such person or place in any case where the description in regard to the name of the person or place is such as to be commonly understood; and the returning officer shall permit any such misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error to be corrected and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer, inaccurate description, clerical, technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper shall be overlooked. 6. That the respondent No.1 being a candidate of the ruling party and on his behest the Presiding Officer and Polling Officers were appointed to conduct the election with mala fide motive and designed to further prospect of winning of respondent No.1. Though at the time of scrutiny the petitioner has approached the authority for grant of time to rectify the clerical/typographical mistake he was not allotted any time though under Clause-12 of the candidates hand-book, the returning officer may allow time up to two days which he has not granted at the behest of respondent No.1. The returning officer has also not supplied the certified copy of rejection order which he suppose to supply immediately then and there on the date of rejection. 19. The returning officer has also not supplied the certified copy of rejection order which he suppose to supply immediately then and there on the date of rejection. 19. On a careful reading of the averments made by the parties as well as the requirement of Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act and Rule 94 of Election Rules, it is clear that an affidavit in the Form No.25 as prescribed under the Election Rules is only required where an election petitioner seeks to raise an election dispute on the ground of corrupt practice and not otherwise. In the present case, on a detailed reading of the alleged Paragraphs-5(A) and 6 in the election petition (which have been extracted hereinabove), it would be clear therefrom that there is no specific allegation of corrupt practice made by the election petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of corrupt practice, the contentions raised by Respondent No.1, that the election petition is not maintainable since the petition did not contain an affidavit in Form No.25 is of no consequence. The election petitioner has not sought to set aside the election petition of Respondent No.1 of any ground of corrupt practice and has limited his prayer to the ground of unlawful and illegal rejection of the nomination papers of the election petitioner and has also made allegations about the illegal and unlawful acceptance of nomination papers of the respondents and most importantly, that of Respondent No.1, the successful candidate. 20. I am of the considered view that since the election petitioner has not made any allegation of corrupt practice in his election petition, there is no requirement for him to make any affidavit in Form No.25 of Election Rules, 1961. Therefore, this allegation on the part of election petitioner fails and stands rejected. 21. Further, insofar as the contention of the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in the election petition) in the present Misc. Case is concerned that the Opposite Party-Election Petitioner failing to have endorsed true copy above his signature on each page on the copy served on Respondent No.1, this Court perused the original copy served on Respondent No.1 and filed in this Court along with the affidavit of Respondent No.1. Case is concerned that the Opposite Party-Election Petitioner failing to have endorsed true copy above his signature on each page on the copy served on Respondent No.1, this Court perused the original copy served on Respondent No.1 and filed in this Court along with the affidavit of Respondent No.1. On verification of the said copy in original, it appears therefrom that the election petitioner has, in fact, signed every page of the election petition and also on every page of annexures annexed to the election petition. It is true that while the signature in the original copy is found in the body of the election petition as noted hereinabove, the election petitioner has not written the words true copy above his signature. This issue need not detain us much longer as the same is no longer res integra and has also been settled by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Subbarao, ( AIR 1964 SC 1027 ) (supra). 22. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner (Respondent No.1) in the present Misc. Case on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.(Smt.) Shipra, ( AIR 1996 SC 1691 ) (supra) and in particular Paragraph-11 thereof but such observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been set aside and held to be no longer good law and in Paragraph-13 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held the same not to be good law. Hence, it is clear therefrom that Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act and the Election Rules requires substantial compliance. On perusal of the copy of the petition served on Respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered view that there has been substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act. Copy of the petition served on Respondent No.1 is in no manner different in any regard from the election petition filed before this Court and, therefore, the petitioner (Respondent No.1) cannot claim to have been deceived in any manner and hence, this plea of the petitioner (Respondent No.1) also is of no consequence and has to be rejected. 23. Copy of the petition served on Respondent No.1 is in no manner different in any regard from the election petition filed before this Court and, therefore, the petitioner (Respondent No.1) cannot claim to have been deceived in any manner and hence, this plea of the petitioner (Respondent No.1) also is of no consequence and has to be rejected. 23. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the prayer made in the present petition filed by the petitioner (Respondent No.1-Bhagirathi Badajena) under Sections 86 and 87 of the 1951 Act read with Order 7, Rule 11 and Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the same stands rejected. 24. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.