Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 784 (MP)

Rahul Singh Lodhi v. Chanda Devi

2014-07-08

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
ORDER : G.S. SOLANKI, J. 1. G.S. Solanki, J. Heard on I.A. No, 34/2014, which is an application filed by the respondent under Sections 86, 81(3) and 87(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. This application has been filed by the respondent inter-alia pleading that :- (a) the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent does not bear any stamp/seal of Notary in any of the pages throughout the memo of the petition. (b) no seal/stamp of the Notary has been affixed in the affidavit annexed along with the election petition. (c) no seal/stamp of the Notary has been affixed in the list of documents. (d) the list of documents annexed with the election petition is undated. (e) all the documents annexed along with the election petition do not bear any stamp/seal of Notary. 3. It is submitted that the copy of election petition received by the respondent is Document-1 and the instant election petition suffers from fatal defects. It is further submitted that the copy accompanying the election petition, which has been served upon the respondent is not a true copy of the election petition. 4. On the basis of aforesaid contentions, it is submitted that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provision of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short The Act, 1951), therefore, prayer is made to dismiss the instant election petition. 5. A reply of the application has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted in the reply that the election petition was personally presented by the petitioner himself before the Registrar in the set of 1 + 3, out of which one set was meant for the respondent and it was accompanied by his registered address and envelop. It is further submitted that the Registrar (J) had verified the aforesaid additional sets and the copy meant for the respondents, which has been certified as true copy by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has denied the contention raised by the respondent in regard to non-compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951 and it is submitted that the petitioner has filed true and identical copy of the election petition for service of the respondent. 6. The petitioner has denied the contention raised by the respondent in regard to non-compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951 and it is submitted that the petitioner has filed true and identical copy of the election petition for service of the respondent. It is further submitted that the copy of the election petition, meant for the respondent, was attested and signed on every page as true copy of the original by the petitioner in blue ink. Likewise all the documents along with the election petition were verified and signed in blue ink by the petitioner. There is no requirement under Section 81(3) of the Act, 1951 that the copy of the election petition should contain the notary's seal on the petition, affidavit and the documents. 7. On the basis of aforesaid contentions, it is prayed that the application is without any merit and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Before considering the rival submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision of Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951. Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951 is reproduced below:- 81. Presentation of petitions. (1).............. (2).............. (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. 9. It is clear from a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that even copy of the election petition shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. I have perused the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent. Every page of the copy of the election petition has been attested by the petitioner himself after writing 'true copy attested'. Thus, the petitioner has fully complied with the provision don 81 (3) of the Act, 1951. 10. The Apex Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, JT 1991 (2) S.C. 503 has observed that since there is no particular form of attestation prescribed, mere signature without the words like true copy, is sufficient attestation under Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951. 10. The Apex Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, JT 1991 (2) S.C. 503 has observed that since there is no particular form of attestation prescribed, mere signature without the words like true copy, is sufficient attestation under Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951. The Apex Court in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and others - (1999) 4 SCC 274 has laid am that 'True copy' of election petition within the meaning of Section 81 (3) toes not mean absolutely exact copy but it is one which no reasonable person an misunderstand as not being the same as the original. It should not contain any substantial variation of vital nature which can mislead such person to understand and meet the charge. 11. The copy supplied to the respondent bears signatures of the petitioner beneath the words "true copy attested" shows that the petitioner has complied with the provision of Section 81(3) of the Act, 1951, therefore, the objection raised by the respondent, that the petitioner has failed to comply the mandatory condition prescribed in Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951, is not acceptable. 12. Consequently, I.A. No. 34/2014 is hereby dismissed. 13. Heard on I.A. No. 35/2014, which is an application filed by the respondent under Section 87(1) of the Act, 1951 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 14. This application has been filed by the respondent inter-alia pleading that the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent lacks material facts, constituting the requisite cause of action, required under the Act, 1951. It is further submitted that the allegations of corrupt practice contained in Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 do not complete the requisite chain of events which is the very basic requirement to constitute the bare minimum cause of action. It is further submitted that no material facts have been pleaded in regard to the fact that how information came to the knowledge of the petitioner pertaining to the incidents pleaded in the aforesaid paragraphs. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not pleaded the basis material fact pertaining to alleged corrupt practice qua personal knowledge or information through specific person is lacking in the petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not pleaded the basis material fact pertaining to alleged corrupt practice qua personal knowledge or information through specific person is lacking in the petition. It is further submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the petition in connection with corrupt practices, is also not in the format prescribed under the Act, 1951. The election petition has been presented and verified on 21.1.2014 whereas in the affidavit the date is mentioned as 20.1.2014, therefore, on the date when the affidavit was sworn, the election petition was not in existence, thus, the affidavit has been sworn in support of non-existing pleadings, therefore, the election petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has not pleaded as to how he got the information in regard to corrupt practices alleged against respondent No 1 or her agents or relatives, therefore, there is substantial non-compliance of Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951. To buttress the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakam and another - (1989) 4 SCC 482 and Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and others - (1995) 5 SCC 347 . 16. It is further submitted that the petitioner has verified the petition in Para No. 17 on the strength of personal knowledge, while the statutory' affidavit accompanying the election petition in as many as on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 paragraphs, the contents of Paragraph 17 have been repeatedly verified under oath on the basis of information. Thus, there is fatal contradiction between the statutory affidavit pertaining to corrupt practices and the statutory verification in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1951, which itself rendered the instant election petition susceptible to dismissal at the very threshold. 17. The reply of the application has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the contentions raised by the respondent except the fact in regard to affidavit that the same was sworn on 20.1.2014. It is submitted that the election petition was presented before the Registrar (J) on 20.1.2014. It is further submitted that the corrupt practices pleaded in Para 11 to 17 specifically state the 'material facts' together with their 'particulars', thus constituting complete cause of action required under the Act, 1951. It is submitted that the election petition was presented before the Registrar (J) on 20.1.2014. It is further submitted that the corrupt practices pleaded in Para 11 to 17 specifically state the 'material facts' together with their 'particulars', thus constituting complete cause of action required under the Act, 1951. It is further submitted that the petitioner has substantially complied with the provision of Section 83(l)(a) and (b) and has pleaded all material facts and full particulars in regard to corrupt practices in the petition Paragraph Nos. 11 to 17. Counsel has further submitted that the question of cause of action ought to be decided by taking the averments in totality and by assuming them to be factually correct, therefore, this application is misconceived and therefore, is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner's counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar v. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and others - (2005) 2 SCC 188 and G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar - AIR 2013 SC 1549 . 18. For the purpose of resolving the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951. Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 is reproduced below:- 83. Contents of petition.- (1) An election petition- (a) shall contain a concise 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 (5 of 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. 19. It reveals from a bare perusal of the election petition in the light of the provision of Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in this regard, that the petitioner has substantially pleaded the detailed facts in regard to the corrupt practice in petition Paragraph Nos. 11 to 17. 19. It reveals from a bare perusal of the election petition in the light of the provision of Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in this regard, that the petitioner has substantially pleaded the detailed facts in regard to the corrupt practice in petition Paragraph Nos. 11 to 17. The petitioner has substantially pleaded as to how respondent or her agents and family members were involved in corrupt practice of distributing the money to the villagers, name of the villagers who received the alleged money have also been disclosed and the agent of the petitioner had reported the matter to the authorities from time to time. The name of the person, who was involved in booth capturing has also been specifically pleaded and the agent of the petitioner had made a complaint to the returning officer by hand as well as by e-mail. Thus, the petitioner has substantially complied with the provision of Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 thereby he disclosed the cause of action. 20. So far as disclosing the source of information in regard to the charge of corrupt practice levelled against the respondent is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance heavily on a decision of the Apex Court in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and others (supra). The facts of the said case were totally different tot the instant case. In the instant case, the petitioner has pleaded that his election agent, who was present on the spot, made report to the district returning officer in regard to booth capturing and further he informed to the petitioner. So far as pleadings of other corrupt practices like distribution of money is concerned, the petitioner has specifically pleaded the name of the persons, who had received the alleged amount and those persons are the source of information of the petitioner. 21. So far as pleadings of other corrupt practices like distribution of money is concerned, the petitioner has specifically pleaded the name of the persons, who had received the alleged amount and those persons are the source of information of the petitioner. 21. On a bare perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it reveals that the petitioner has sworn the affidavit that the facts in regard to corrupt practices are true to his information and word 'information' has been mentioned after narrating the facts wherein name of persons, who had received the money and name of the person who was involved in the booth capturing along with the name of polling agent of the petitioner, who was present on the spot and had reported the matter to Districting Returning Officer, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the petition and affidavit lacks in regard to pleading regarding source of information. 22. So far as verification clause and affidavit accompanied to the petition, are concerned, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in verification clause that Paragraphs 1 to 10 and 17 to 22 are true to his personal knowledge and Paragraph Nos. 11 to 17 are true and correct on information received ant believed to be true. Paragraphs 1 to 10 are basic pleadings in regard to election petition and Paragraphs 17 to 22 are based on the pleadings of corrupt practice, which has been pleaded in Paragraphs 11 to 16 of the petition the affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that Paragraphs 11, 12,13,14,15 and 16 are based on information which is in consonance with the verification clause. Thus, there is no variance in the verification clause and the affidavit sworn by the petitioner. 23. Considering aforesaid pleadings on record, I am of the view that I.A. No. 35/2014 has no force, same is hereby dismissed. 24. Heard on I.A. No. 36/2014, which is an application under Section 87(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 25. This application has been filed by the respondent inter-alia pleading that pleadings of Paragraph 1 of the election petition deserves to be struck off as it is absolutely vague and unnecessary, lacking totally immaterial facts and particulars. 25. This application has been filed by the respondent inter-alia pleading that pleadings of Paragraph 1 of the election petition deserves to be struck off as it is absolutely vague and unnecessary, lacking totally immaterial facts and particulars. Contents of Paragraphs 2 to 7 do not disclose any cause of action for the purpose of instant is and deserves to be struck off. Further, contents of paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, deserve to be struck off. 26. A reply of this application has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the pleadings made in Paragraphs 1 to 20 are necessary for just and proper adjudication of the instant election petition. All the pleadings, if read comprehensively and collectively, a complete picture of commission of corrupt practices by the respondent and with her consent, therefore, same cannot be said to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, therefore, this application is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 27. I have perused the entire pleadings right from Paragraph 1 to Paragraph 20, which are basic and concise statement of material facts in regard to corrupt practices and full statement as possible of names of parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices along with date and place of commission of the aforesaid corrupt practice, therefore, the petitioner has pleaded his case in compliance of Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 and none of the pleadings can be said to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, therefore, I do not find any ground to entertain this application. 28. Consequently, I.A. No. 36/2014 is hereby dismissed. 29. The respondent is directed to file written statement. 30. List on 22.7.2014. 31. Certified copy as per rules.