9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain preliminary objections and reject the election petition. 2. Whether the allegations in the election petition disclosed a cause of action. 3. Opportunity to amend the election petition. 4. Validity of respondent's election in light of subsequent elections. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The appellant contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain preliminary objections under Order VI Rule 16 or to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the respondent had filed his written statement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in striking out pleadings and rejecting the election petition at the preliminary stage. The Court emphasized that Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 are applicable to election petitions and that the High Court has the power to strike out pleadings at any stage if they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. 2. Allegations in the Election Petition: The appellant alleged several corrupt practices, including undue influence, hiring and procuring vehicles, and obtaining assistance from government servants. The Supreme Court found that the allegations were vague, general, and did not disclose any cause of action as required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court noted that the allegations lacked material facts and particulars necessary to constitute corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Act. For instance, allegations of incurring expenses beyond the permissible limit and using government servants for election purposes were not substantiated with specific details. 3. Opportunity to Amend the Petition: The appellant argued that the High Court deprived him of the opportunity to amend the petition by rejecting it under Order VII Rule 11. The Supreme Court held that the appellant did not file any amendment application before the High Court. The Court further noted that any amendment application made after the expiry of the period of limitation could not be permitted, as it would amount to raising a new ground of challenge. The amendments sought by the appellant were not in the nature of supplying particulars but rather sought to raise new grounds, which is impermissible after the limitation period. 4. Validity of Respondent's Election: The Supreme Court observed that the election under challenge related to 1981, and its term expired in 1984. Since the respondent was re-elected in the subsequent general election in 1984, the Court held that the relief for setting aside the election had been rendered infructuous by lapse of time. The Court emphasized that it should not decide an issue unless it is a living issue between the parties. The main controversy regarding the setting aside of the respondent's election had become academic, and the Court should not waste public time on such matters. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11, as the petition did not disclose any cause of action. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000. The Court also expressed concern over the increasing number of independent candidates contesting elections without serious intent, causing confusion among voters and wasting judicial time.
|
