Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2052 (ALL)

Rakesh Agarwal v. Arun Kumar

2019-09-04

ASHOK KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR, J. 1. This election petition has been filed by the petitioner arising out of election to 124 Bareilly City Assembly Constituency held in March, 2017 and the result of which was declared in which the respondent no. 1 was declared elected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the nomination paper to contest the election to 124 Bareilly City Assembly Constituency. The petitioner claims that he has deposited security amount and has also submitted his detailed affidavit, additional affidavit and the revised affidavit. 3. The petitioner claims that he opened a fresh bank account and had complied all other conditions as instructed by the returning officer. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 30.01.2017 the Returning Officer has rejected his nomination on the ground that in the revised affidavit in part 'Kha', in Column 8 Kha (iii)' Columns 5,6,7 and 8 are left blank by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that there was no concealment as alleged. 5. The petitioner therefore claims that the omission in part A, as pointed out by the Returning Officer, may be fatal but not in part B, which is exclusively founded on part A. 6. He therefore claims that in view of the aforesaid, the affidavit filed by the petitioner can not be treated either incomplete or defective therefore the rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer was uncalled for and arbitrary as such dictatorial exercise of power. 7. The nomination paper of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer has found that the same was inadequate and incomplete, hence the same was rejected. 8. The objection filed by the petitioner dated 30.01.2017 against the rejection of his nomination was dealt with by the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer has reiterated his decision rejecting the nomination paper filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner is disqualified to be chosen to fill the Assembly seat in question. 9. The respondent no. 1 was declared elected. 10. Against the order declaring the respondent no. 1 as elected Member of Legislative Assembly the present election petition has been filed by the petitioner with the allegation that the respondent no. 1 committed corrupt practice of undue influence upon the Returning Officer as a result of which the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected. 11. 1 was declared elected. 10. Against the order declaring the respondent no. 1 as elected Member of Legislative Assembly the present election petition has been filed by the petitioner with the allegation that the respondent no. 1 committed corrupt practice of undue influence upon the Returning Officer as a result of which the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected. 11. This election petition was nominated to this Court by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and thereafter the same was listed with the consent of the respective parties on 22nd September, 2017. After 22.09.2017 the petition was not listed on the date fixed as such was listed only on 02.02.2018 with the office report. 12. On the request of the petitioner, who appeared personally, the notice was issued to the respondent no. 1 under Rule 5 of Chapter XV-A of the Rules of the Court. Office was directed to send the notice through R.P.A.D. and the matter was directed to be listed on 23.03.2018. The office has submitted its report dated 23.03.2018. The office report indicates that neither the acknowledgement nor undelivered notices has been returned back. 13. The petition thereafter has been taken up on 06.04.2018 when an amendment application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by one Sri Arvind Singh, who claims that he is the clerk of the counsel who has filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. 14. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that the respondent no. 1 has shifted his clinic to other place and therefore it was prayed (in the said amendment application/affidavit) that the details of the respondent no. 1 requires the amendment in the original election petition as also the new addresses. 15. The petitioner was present when the aforesaid proceedings were taken up. 16. During the aforesaid proceedings the counsel has filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and since the averments of the amendment application / affidavit were doubtful, it was directed by the Court to the counsel who had filed the amendment application to file a proper amendment application disclosing the source of the contents / change of addresses of the respondent no. 1 and since the petitioner himself was present he was directed to file the proper affidavit. 17. 1 and since the petitioner himself was present he was directed to file the proper affidavit. 17. The proceedings on 06.04.2018 were held even after advocates' strike as the petitioner himself appeared and with the consent of the parties the matter was listed for 27.04.2018. 18. The office report dated 27.04.2018 indicates that the registered post AD was neither received back nor undelivered notice has been returned back. However, the Court has proceeded as the counsel for respondent no. 1 appeared and accordingly the amendment application was allowed and the petitioner was allowed to carry out the necessary amendments. 19. Thereafter, as jointly agreed, the case was directed to be listed in the third week of May, 2018. On 25.05.2018 the petition was listed and an application without an affidavit was filed on 25.05.2018 by the petitioner. 20. The Court has directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of his application. The petitioner however has insisted for acceptance of the said application without an affidavit. 21. The following detailed order has been passed on 25.05.2018:- "An application dated 25th May, 2018 is filed by the petitioner Sri Rakesh Agarwal which is not supported by an affidavit. Sri Rakesh Agarwal, petitioner is directed to file this application supported by an affidavit but he has stated that this application may be taken on record even without supported by an affidavit. The court has noticed that several original documents are annexed along with this application. According to the Court legible photostate copies should by filed supported by an affidavit. This application be taken on record and whenever a fresh application along with photostat copy of all the documents supported by an affidavit, is filed the same be taken on record and if the petitioner desires the original copies enclosed with this application be returned to the petitioner. In paragraph nos.5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20, in the instant election petition, the petitioner has made several allegations against Sri Manoj who was the Returning Officer. The petitioner has informed the Court that Sri Manoj, the Returning Officer, who has conducted the election which was held in March, 2017, is now posted as Chief Revenue Officer at Deoria. Let notice be issued to Sri Manoj, now posted as Chief Revenue Officer, Deoria. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice through speed post within three days. The petitioner has informed the Court that Sri Manoj, the Returning Officer, who has conducted the election which was held in March, 2017, is now posted as Chief Revenue Officer at Deoria. Let notice be issued to Sri Manoj, now posted as Chief Revenue Officer, Deoria. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice through speed post within three days. Office is directed to send the notice to Sri Manoj, Chief Revenue Officer Deoria, who was Returning Officer of the U.P. Legislative Assembly election held in the month of March, 2017 of District Bareilly (City). Sri Manoj may file counter affidavit within six weeks. List this petition on 10th August, 2018. Sri Ankit Saran, Advocate representing the respondent no.1 is directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks. A copy of the counter affidavit be served upon the petitioner through registered post at his address given in the election petition. Respondent no.2 has not filed any reply so far. As a last opportunity six weeks time is allowed to him to file the reply." 22. The office report dated 10.08.2018 indicates that the Chief Standing Counsel, Sri K.R. Singh has filed an affidavit on behalf of Returning Officer. 23. No counter affidavit was filed by the respondents and the counsel for the respondent no. 2 was not present therefore with the consent of the petitioner the date has been fixed as 22.10.2018. 24. On 22.10.2018 the Court has passed the following order:- "This Court vide order dated 25.5.2018 had granted six weeks' time to the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to file the written statement/counter affidavit. It was also directed to the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to serve a copy of the written statement/counter affidavit upon the petitioner at his registered postal address. Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for respondent No.1 was not present on the last date which was fixed by this Court, vide order dated 25.5.2018, being 10.8.2018. Today when the case is taken up, Sri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has informed the Court that an application along with an affidavit has been filed by Sri Manoj, who was the Returning Officer. The said affidavit of Sri Manoj is available on record. Today when the case is taken up, Sri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has informed the Court that an application along with an affidavit has been filed by Sri Manoj, who was the Returning Officer. The said affidavit of Sri Manoj is available on record. Since the copy of the said affidavit filed by Sri Manoj is not served on the petitioner, it is hereby directed that the same be served upon the petitioner, who is personally present, during the course of the day. Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 has prayed for further time to file the reply/written statement on behalf of the respondent No.1. Three weeks and no more time is allowed to respondent No.1 to file the counter affidavit/written statement. The petitioner, Sri Rakesh Aggarwal, has placed reliance on provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 particularly Order 8 Rule 1, Rule 5, Rule 10 and has submitted that the Court while allowing further time to the respondent No.1 may impose the cost. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the petitioner, this Court proposes to fix this petition on 20.11.2018 with a specific direction that on the next date fixed, the counsel for the respondent No.1 must file the written statement/counter affidavit, a copy of which must be supplied to the petitioner before 17.11.2018. Let the petition be listed at the top of the list on 20.11.2018." 25. The case was heard on 20.11.2018 and the following order has been passed in presence of the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent:- "On the last date, on the request of Sri Ankit Saran, who appeared on behalf of respondent no.1, three weeks' time was granted to him to file the reply/written statement on behalf of respondent no.1. It was clearly indicated that no further time will be allowed to the respondent no.1 to file the written statement/counter affidavit. In the order dated 22.10.2108 while fixing the petition for 20.11.2018 this Court has directed the counsel for the respondent no.1 to file written statement/counter affidavit on the next date fixed which is 20.11.2018 and a copy of the said written statement/counter affidavit must be supplied to the petitioner before 17.11.2018. Today Sri K.R. Singh and Sri Siddharth Singhal filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1 and an endorsement is made by Sri Ankit Saran, Advocate that he has no objection. Today Sri K.R. Singh and Sri Siddharth Singhal filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1 and an endorsement is made by Sri Ankit Saran, Advocate that he has no objection. The said Vakalatnama be taken on record. The election petitioner, Sri Rakesh Agarwal has pointed out that the copy of the written statement filed on behalf respondent no.1 is served upon him today at 3.15 P.M. and apart from the written statement, three applications are also served upon him, being application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., under Order 6 Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and application under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election petitioner has pointed out that the respondent no.1, in fact, has disobeyed the order of this Court dated 22.10.2018 and has not served/supplied the copy of the written statement on or before 17.11.2018, hence cost be imposed upon the respondent no.1. As requested by the petitioner, a week's time is allowed to file the replication to the written statement and the reply to the aforesaid three applications. As jointly prayed by the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent no.1, list this petition on 30.11.2018." 26. The office report dated 30.11.2018 / 06.12.2018 indicates that the petitioner has not filed the reply to the written statement or the reply to the applications filed by the respondent no. 1. On the next date fixed when the case was listed, after hearing the parties following order was passed:- "Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1 has filed an application supported by an affidavit, a copy of which is served upon the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Agarwal today. Sri Rakesh Agarwal may file reply, if he so desire within ten days. Sri Rakesh Agarwal, the petitioner has filed replication, the reply to the application supported by the affidavit as well as three counter affidavits, which are the reply to the affidavits/application filed by the respondent no. 1. All the aforesaid affidavits/applications/replication be taken on record. The petitioner, Sri Rakesh Agarwal has also filed an affidavit/ reply to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Manoj, who was the then returning officer, a copy of which is served upon the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri K.R. Singh. As prayed by Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. The petitioner, Sri Rakesh Agarwal has also filed an affidavit/ reply to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Manoj, who was the then returning officer, a copy of which is served upon the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri K.R. Singh. As prayed by Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, two weeks' time is allowed to file the replies to the above counter affidavits/replication filed by the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Agarwal. As agreed by the parties, list this petition on 11th January, 2019." 27. On the next date fixed i.e. on 11.01.2019, three rejoinder affidavits were filed by the respondent no. 1 and another rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Returning Officer, respondent no. 2. 28. A counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed by the petitioner and the petitioner has contested the delay condonation application therefore the counsel for the respondent no. 1 has prayed for short time to file the reply to the counter affidavit. The case was adjourned for 23.01.2019. 29. On 23.01.2019 the case was taken up and was heard and following order has been passed fixing 24.01.2019 for further hearing:- "In pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2018 the respondent no. 1 has filed the written statement on the date fixed, being 20.11.2018 granting the time to the respondent no. 1 to file the written statement. Though this Court has observed that copy of the written statement be served/supplied to the petitioner on or before 17.11.2018. The written statement filed be taken on record. The reply has been filed by the petitioner to the affidavit filed by the then Returning Officer- Sri Manoj, which is also available on record. The petitioner- Sri Rakesh Agarwal has filed a counter affidavit to the affidavit filed in support of the written statement stating therein that the written statement is not acceptable for the reason that the respondent no. 1 failed to comply the order dated 22.10.2018 and failed to supply the copy of the written statement to the petitioner on or before 17.11.2018 and the copy of the written submission was supplied to the petitioner only on 20.11.2018 which was the date fixed. The petitioner therefore has prayed that the written statement filed by the respondent no. 1 is not acceptable as the same is filed in contravention of the directions of this Court. The petitioner therefore has prayed that the written statement filed by the respondent no. 1 is not acceptable as the same is filed in contravention of the directions of this Court. Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1 has filed the affidavit to the objection filed by the petitioner saying therein that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondent no. 1 and in fact the written statement was prepared at Allahabad and an affidavit was sworn at Allahabad on 18.11.2018 and since the written statement was prepared at Allahabad on 17.11.2018 and swearing was done on 18.11.2018, the same practically could not be supplied to the petitioner as the petitioner resides at District Bareilly and as soon as the petitioner reached at Allahabad on the date fixed i.e. 20.11.2018, a copy of the written statement was supplied to the petitioner on 20.11.2018. I have perused the objections of the petitioner and also the reasons given by the respondent no. 1 and in my opinion neither there was any deliberate default on the part of the respondent no. 1 nor there was any ill intention, hence the objection of the petitioner can not sustain. In view of the aforesaid, this Court proposes to proceed the proceedings on merit. Put up tomorrow i.e. 24.01.2019 at 12.00 p.m. for further hearing." 30. On 24.01.2019 the matter was heard and following order has been passed:- "Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri K.R. Singh has placed reliance of the provisions of Section 87 of Representation of People Act, 1951 as well as the procedure prescribed therein. He has further placed reliance of provision of Order 6 Rule 14A and Order 7 Rule 19-25 of Amended Allahabad Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has therefore submitted that instant election petition is not maintainable as the copy which has been provided/supplied to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner is an incomplete document. He has pointed out that in the index of the election petition there are only 26 pages referred and the copy supplied to the respondent no. 1 indicates total number of pages of the election petition as 26. During the course of proceedings when the counsel for the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner is an incomplete document. He has pointed out that in the index of the election petition there are only 26 pages referred and the copy supplied to the respondent no. 1 indicates total number of pages of the election petition as 26. During the course of proceedings when the counsel for the respondent no. 1 has pointed out about irregularity on the part of the petitioner, the Court has seen the documents and it is noticed that the affidavit filed in support of the election petition starts from page 20, which runs in three pages and the verification of the affidavit is on page 22. Page 23 refers the list of the address of the petitioner which is signed by the petitioner on 25.04.2017. Page A-3/24 is a document of the photostat copy of the Registration of the petitioner as an Advocate which is issued by the Bar Council of U.P. Allahabad. Next to the above document is the list of all document on which the petitioner relies as evidence in support of his claims which starts from page A-3/25 to A-3/ 28 which is also signed by the petitioner and the date is mentioned being 25.04.2017. The last paper is the document in which the number is mentioned as A-3/29 which is the receipt issued by the registry/ tender notice acknowledging the deposit of Rs. 2000/- made by the petitioner on 25.04.2017. The contention of the counsel for the respondent no. 1 is that the petitioner has not proceeded in accordance with law as he failed to provide the address of service. In the aforesaid background the petitioner- Sri Rakesh Agarwal has prayed as also the counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri K.R. Singh that both of them may be permitted to go through peruse the original complete record of the election petition. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner are allowed to proceed in the matter and adopt the appropriate steps for permission by the appropriate authority / registry authority to permit them for inspection of all the original records. As agreed and prayed by Sri Rakesh Agarwal and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri K.R. Singh, list this case again on 27th February, 2019. In the meantime the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 will inspect the original record." 31. As agreed and prayed by Sri Rakesh Agarwal and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri K.R. Singh, list this case again on 27th February, 2019. In the meantime the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 will inspect the original record." 31. On the next date fixed i.e. on 27.02.2019 an application supported by an affidavit was filed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (herein after referred as 'The Act') by the respondent no. 1. 32. Along with the application / affidavit two documents are enclosed, which are, the complete copy of the election petition filed by the petitioner which was served upon the respondent no. 1 in original being annexure 1 to the affidavit and the certified copy of the election petition, which is obtained by the respondent no. 1 from the office of the registry of this Court. 33. The petitioner prayed and was allowed ten days time to file the reply to the said application / affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 and with the consent of the parties the case was fixed on 15.03.2019. 34. On 15.03.2019, On the request of the petitioner, the case was adjourned and following order has been passed:- "Sri Saroj Giri, Advocate associated with the chamber of Mr. Mayank Agarwal, Advocate, who previously represents the petitioner- Sri Rakesh Agarwal has informed the Court that the petitioner- Sri Rakesh Agarwal, who was appearing in person before this Court in the instant election petition, is not feeling well, therefore he has requested him to request the Court to pass over the case today. This case is specially fixed by this Bench on the request of Sri Rakesh Agarwal for today vide order dated 27.02.2019. Since the petitioner, who himself is arguing his case is not well, the case is passed over for the day. List this petition after four weeks." 35. When the case was listed on 29.05.2019 it was again adjourned on the request of the petitioner as he was not feeling well and therefore on his request the case was fixed for 31.05.2019. 36. On 31.05.2019, a counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the application / affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 86(1) of 'The Act'. 37. On the request of the counsel for the respondent no. 36. On 31.05.2019, a counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the application / affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 86(1) of 'The Act'. 37. On the request of the counsel for the respondent no. 1 three weeks time was allowed to file the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit and as jointly agreed the date was fixed for 12.07.2019. 38. On 12.07.2019, two weeks and no more time was allowed to respondent no. 1 to file the rejoinder affidavit and as jointly agreed the date was fixed for 02.08.2019. The rejoinder affidavit is filed on 02.08.2019. 39. The case is heard at length on 02.08.2019. 40. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent no. 1 is not the true copy of the election petition, which has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 41. According to the counsel for the respondent no. 1, the original copy of election petition contains two extra pages, which are not part of the copy of the election petition served / supplied by the petitioner to the respondent no. 1. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the copy of the election petition was made available / filed by the petitioner himself in the registry of this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner has not made any endorsement on the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent no. 1 that it is the true copy of the original election petition. 42. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, has submitted that the petitioner therefore has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951. He has referred the provision of Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which reads as follows:- "Section 81. Presentation of petitions.- (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in [sub-section (1)] of Section 100 and Section 101 to the [High Court] by any candidate at such election or any elector [within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates]. Explanation.- In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not." 43. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has placed reliance of the provision of Sub Section (3) of Section 81, which reads as follows:- "Section 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." 44. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has also placed reliance of the provision of Section 86 of 'The Act'. Section 86 of the Act of 1951 provides the trial of election petitions. Sub Section (1) of Section 86 reads as follows:- "Section 86. Trial of election petitions. (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Explanation.- An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of Section 98." 45. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 therefore submits that while deciding the election petition the Court possess no common law power. He has further submitted that the statutory requirements of the election law must be strictly observed and complied with. 46. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 therefore submits that in view of the provision of Section 81 and Section 86 of the Act the present election petition is not maintainable as such is liable to be dismissed. 47. The Court thereafter has asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the objection about the maintainability of the present election petition. The petitioner who appeared in person instead of replying the arguments and the objections of the counsel for the respondent no. 1 has stated that he do not want to give any reply to the objection / submission of the counsel for the respondent no. 1 and has submitted that this Court should not proceed further in the matter and to release the case. The Court thereafter has asked the petitioner that why such irrelevant submission is made by the petitioner, the petitioner has repeated again and again for release of the case. 48. 1 and has submitted that this Court should not proceed further in the matter and to release the case. The Court thereafter has asked the petitioner that why such irrelevant submission is made by the petitioner, the petitioner has repeated again and again for release of the case. 48. Analysis of Sub Section (3) of Section 81 would reveal that every election petition should be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and that every copy should be attested by the petitioner to be a true copy of the petition under his own signature. If these requirements are not followed strictly and literally, it would result in dismissal of the election petition without any trial as provided by Section 86 of the Act. 49. In the instant case the main point raised by the respondent no. 1 was that the sets of copies, which were filed by the election petitioner before this Court are different then those copies, which are made served by the petitioner upon the respondent no. 1. 50. The admitted fact is that the petitioner has filed two sets of copy of the election petition in the High Court Registry. The first / original copy of the election petition contains first 17 pages, which are numbered by hand by sketch pen thereafter page 18 and 19 is the affidavit filed and signed by the petitioner. Page 20 is another affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of allegations of corrupt practice and page 20 and 21 are also marked by sketch pen, whereas the next page, which provides the verification part is not marked by sketch pen. The signature of the petitioner are on two places on unnumbered page and the date has been mentioned as 25th Day of April, 2017 and the time is mentioned by hand in blue ink as “at April 1.40 p.m." 51. After the unnumbered page, another page is tagged, which provides the list of address of the petitioner in which the details are mentioned and the petitioner has signed at the middle and the date is mentioned as 25.04.2017, thereafter page 22 is tagged, which is numbered by sketch pen which provides the identification ID of the petitioner issued by the Bar Council of U.P., Allahabad. Thereafter pages 24 to 26 are again numbered by sketch pen and are tagged providing the list of all documents on which the petitioner relies as evidence in support of his claim. Page 26 is signed, which provides the date and time as 25th April, 2017 about 1.40 p.m. by the oath commissioner. 52. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed an affidavit dated 17.02.2019 and had enclosed with it the certified copy of the election petition which was served upon him as annexure-1. The aforesaid certified copy of the election petition has been filed so as to enable the court to compare it with the original. 53. A perusal of the certified copy of the election petition as served upon the respondent No.1 reveals that it has not been attested by the petitioner to be a true copy of the original petition. It does not contain any endorsement that it is a true copy of the original election petition. 54. A comparison of the aforesaid copy of the election petition served upon the respondent No.1 with the original reveals that there are two additional pages tagged with the election petition which provide the list of address of the petitioner and identification proof of the petitioner which are missing in the copy of the election petition served/supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 55. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the copy of the election petition supplied to the respondent No.1 is not in conformity with Section 81(3) of the Act. 56. In Sharif-Ud-Din Vs. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) AIR SC 303 observed as under:- "The object of requiring the copy of an election petition to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition appears to be that the petitioner should take full responsibility for its contents and that the respondent or respondents should have in their possession a copy of the petition duly attested under the signature of the petitioner to be the true copy of the petition at the earliest possible opportunity to prevent any unauthorised alteration or tampering of the contents of the original petition after it is filed into Court." 57. A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. Usha Rani, (1984) AIR SC 956 while considering the provisions of Section 81(3) and 86 of the Act opined that filing of the incorrect copies of the election petition and providing an incorrect copy upon the respondents amounts to non-compliance of Section 81(3) which entails dismissal of the election petition. 58. A learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Shitla Prasad Sonkar Vs. Arun Kumar Nehru and others, (1987) AIR Allahabad 51 following the above decision of the Supreme Court held omission of certain paragraphs in the copy of the election petition supplied to the respondents is fatal and the election petition is liable to be dismissed in view of Section 83(3) and 86(1) of the Act as such a defect cannot be permitted to be rectified. 59. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as legal position narrated, since the provisions of Section 86 of the Act are mandatory and must be complied with in letter and spirit, the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Act. 60. Accordingly, election petition is dismissed under Section 86 of the Act with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the registry of the Court.