9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Letters Patent appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat from an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge in the course of the trial of an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal The primary issue in this appeal is whether a Letters Patent appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat from an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge in the trial of an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act). The appellant contested the election petition filed by the 1st respondent, who alleged that bogus votes were cast in favor of the appellant in the names of dead persons, voters who were physically far away, and voters who were out of the country on the polling day. The learned Single Judge declined the 1st respondent's application to inspect election records, leading to an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to the Division Bench, which allowed the appeal. The appellant then filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Legal Provisions and Interpretation Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars courts from interfering in electoral matters except by an election petition presented as provided by law. Article 327 empowers Parliament to make provisions regarding elections. The Act, enacted under these Articles, originally provided for a single-tier authority (Election Tribunal) to decide election disputes, with no appeal against interlocutory orders. The Act was amended in 1957 and 1966, eventually entrusting the High Court with the power to try election petitions, with appeals against final orders under sections 98 or 99 of the Act lying to the Supreme Court. Judicial Precedents and Analysis The Court referred to the precedent set in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, which held that the Act is a self-contained code for election matters, and the remedy provided by the statute must be availed of exclusively. The Court also discussed the principle from National Telephone Company Ltd. v. Post Master General, which suggests that when a question is referred to an established court, the ordinary incidents of the procedure of that court attach, including any general right of appeal. However, this principle is not unqualified and does not apply when the jurisdiction is special and limited by statute. Conclusion The Court concluded that the jurisdiction to try an election petition under the Act is a special jurisdiction conferred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution, and the Act constitutes a complete code regarding election disputes. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge trying an election petition. The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, and the Letters Patent appeal was dismissed. The parties were left free to pursue any other legal remedies available to them. Outcome The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. No costs were awarded.
|
