Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1013 (GAU)

Lombo Tayeng v. Muk Pertin

2014-11-21

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bharali, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. Applicant is the respondent/returned candidate in the related election petition whereas opposite party is the election petitioner. 3. This application has been filed by the applicant under order XI, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the opposite party. 4. Opposite party has filed the election petition for declaration that the election of the respondent from No. 39 Mebo (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Arunachal Pradesh is void under section 98(b) read with section 100(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Nomination of the opposite party as a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from the No. 39 Mebo Assembly Constituency was rejected by the Returning Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat within whose jurisdiction the Assembly Constituency is situate on the ground that he was holding an office of profit at the time of scrutiny of nominations, which is a disqualification under article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. Objection raised by the applicant that opposite party was the Central Government Counsel in the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court and also the Standing Counsel of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court, thus holding an office of profit under the Government of India, was upheld by the Returning Officer who, therefore, held the opposite party to be disqualified. Consequently, applicant was declared as the returned candidate. This has given rise to the related election petition. 5. In the application, applicant has sought for leave of the court to deliver the following interrogatories to the opposite party: (I) Whether in terms of the election petitioner's appointment as the Central Government Counsel, did he appear on behalf of various Central Government Department and if yes, kindly provide the names of the said Department of the Central Government for whom he had appeared ? (II) Whether the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel raised bills to the various Central Government Department for whom he took steps and if yes, kindly provide the name(s) of various Minis tries/Departments to whom the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel have raised bills? (II) Whether the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel raised bills to the various Central Government Department for whom he took steps and if yes, kindly provide the name(s) of various Minis tries/Departments to whom the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel have raised bills? (III) Whether the bills raised by the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel included his professional fees for appearance in the court, drafting, settling pleadings, giving opinion, etc., on behalf of the various Departments of the Central Government? (IV) Whether the bills raised by the election petitioner were sanctioned by the appropriate authority prior to settling and/or paying the amounts raised in the bills by the election petitioner and if yes, kindly provide the name of the appropriate authority? (V) Whether the bills raised by the election petitioner were settled/paid by the concerned Department(s) of the Central Government and the election petitioner duly received the same? (VI) Kindly provide the names of the authorities in whose power and possession the bills/memos raised by the election petitioner during his term as the Central Government Counsel are? (VII) Kindly inform as to how many Central Government Counsel(s) were appointed specifically to the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court? (VIII) Kindly inform as to who in Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court used to accept notice in respect to the cases involving the Central Government? (IX) If you as the Central Government Counsel used to accept notice in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court for cases involving Central Government, did you take permission from any authority prior to appearing in such cases and if so, kindly provide the name(s)? 6. It is stated that the above interrogatories have actual bearing on the adjudication of the election petition and that filing of list of documents and list of witnesses would be dependent on the answers given by the opposite party to the interrogatories. 7. Opposite party has filed objection. It is contended that the interrogatories are unnecessary. Application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Core issue which would require adjudication in the election petition is whether engagement of the opposite party as Central Government Counsel would amount to holding of office of profit warranting rejection of his nomination. 7. Opposite party has filed objection. It is contended that the interrogatories are unnecessary. Application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Core issue which would require adjudication in the election petition is whether engagement of the opposite party as Central Government Counsel would amount to holding of office of profit warranting rejection of his nomination. To decide this issue, particulars proposed to be sought for through the interrogatories are unnecessary and arc in the nature of fishing enquiry. Notwithstanding the same, the opposite party has stated that he has no difficulty in providing answers to the suggested interrogatories at SI. Nos. III, VII, VIII and IX. 8. Learned counsel for the parties made submissions on pleaded lines. In addition, Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the applicant has referred to various provisions in the CPC dealing with interrogatories and submitted that the answers sought for from the opposite party through the proposed interrogatories would enable the applicant to effectively cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite party thereby enabling him to put up his defence properly. Delivering of interrogatories and answers received in response thereto would infact shorten the litigation and also save the cost of litigation. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the opposite party while reiterating the contentions advanced in the objection has referred to and placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that no leave is required to be granted to the applicant for delivery of the proposed interrogatories to the opposite party:- Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, AIR 1972 SC 1302 . P. Baldn v. Central Bank of India, AIR 2000 Ker. 24 . 9. Submissions made have been considered. 10. Before proceedings further it would be apposite to briefly refer to the relevant legal provisions. 11. Section 30, CPC deals with the power of the court to order discovery and the like. It provides that the court may at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party make such orders as maybe necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to delivery and answering of interrogatories, etc. Order XI deals with discovery and inspection. Order XI, rule 1 provides that in any suit the plaintiff or the defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite party. Order XI deals with discovery and inspection. Order XI, rule 1 provides that in any suit the plaintiff or the defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite party. Delivery of more than one set of interrogatories to the same party is not permissible. As per the second proviso, interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. Under rule 2, the court shall take into account any offer made by the party sought to be interrogated and leave shall be" granted only in respect of those interrogatories which the court considers necessary either for disposing the suit fairly or for saving costs. Once leave is granted, interrogatories are to be delivered in Form No. 2 in Appendix C. Interrogatories are required to be answered by affidavit within ten days or within such time the court may allow. In the affidavit in answer objections to interrogatories may be taken on the grounds mentioned in order XI, rule 6. Objection can be made on the ground that the interrogatory is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide or not sufficiently material at that stage. Under rule 7 any interrogatory may be set aside after service on an application made to that effect within seven days of service on the ground that such interrogatory is unreasonable or vexatious or it is oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. 11. In Raj Narain, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to any matters in question. The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with matters in question. 12. In P. Balan, the Kerala High Court observed that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. Answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to materials facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts. Answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to materials facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts. It was observed that as a general rule interrogatories are to be allowed. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. However, interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the issue involved. Though a broad prospective is required to be taken, the power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. 13. Thus, interrogatories play a useful role in the adjudication of a suit. Objective of administering interrogatories is to obtain information from the other side for effectively pursuing one's case. Though a broad and liberal view is to be taken when leave is sought for to serve interrogatories on the other side, the court must, however, satisfy itself that the proposed interrogatories are relevant and germane to the issue involved in the lis. 14. Having noticed the legal position relating to administering of interrogatories, the proposed interrogatories may now be examined. As already seen, the opposite party has admitted that he has no difficulty in providing answers to the interrogatories at SI. Nos. III, VII, VIII and IX. In respect of the others, the contention is that those are unnecessary having regard to the core issue involved in the election petition or that the opposite party is not in a position to furnish the answers. In the light of the above, the remaining interrogatories, i.e., interrogatories at SI. Nos. I, II, IV, V and VI may be examined. Proposed interrogatory at SI. No. 1 seeks names of the Central Government departments for whom the opposite party had appeared as Central Government Counsel. Having noticed the core issue involved in the election petition, Court is of the view that the proposed interrogatory at SI. No. 1 has relevance to the issue involved. Interrogatories at SI. Nos. II, IV and V deal with raising and settlement of bills of the opposite party as Central Government Counsel by the concerned departments of the Central Government and whether he received the bill amounts. Broadly speaking the said interrogatories cannot be said to be totally irrelevant. That leaves interrogatory at Sl. Interrogatories at SI. Nos. II, IV and V deal with raising and settlement of bills of the opposite party as Central Government Counsel by the concerned departments of the Central Government and whether he received the bill amounts. Broadly speaking the said interrogatories cannot be said to be totally irrelevant. That leaves interrogatory at Sl. No. VI which seeks furnishing of the names of the authorities in whose power and position bills raised by the opposite party as Central Government Counsel were placed. This, in the opinion of the court, has no relevance to the issue involved in the election petition. 15. Thus, having regard to the above, court is of the view that all the proposed interrogatories barring the interrogatory at Sl. No. VI are relevant. Accordingly, leave is granted to the applicant to serve the interrogatories I to V and VII to IX to the opposite party within seven days from today. Opposite party shall answer the same by affidavit within seven days from the date of receipt of the said interrogatories. 16. This disposes of the miscellaneous case. -