9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Validity of the affidavit accompanying the election petition. 3. Substantial compliance with statutory requirements. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: The primary issue was whether the copy of the petition supplied to the returned candidate was a "true copy" within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The returned candidate argued that the copy of the affidavit accompanying the petition did not include the endorsement "affirmed and signed before me," the designation and name of the Notary, and the stamped endorsement regarding affirmation by the Notary. This omission was claimed to be a material contravention of the Act and the Rules, putting the returned candidate at a disadvantage. The court referred to the Supreme Court's principles in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav, which emphasized that a "true copy" must be wholly and substantially the same as the original. The absence of the Notary's endorsement was deemed a substantial defect that could prejudice the returned candidate. The court concluded that the copy supplied did not conform to the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act. 2. Validity of the affidavit accompanying the election petition: The petitioner contended that the affidavit was not an integral part of the petition and that any defect in the affidavit should not warrant dismissal of the petition. The court, however, disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's observation in M. Kamalam v. Dr. V. A. Syed Mohammed, which stated that the affidavit forms part of the election petition. Therefore, the copy of the election petition must include a copy of the affidavit, and any omission in the affidavit's endorsement by the Notary was substantial. 3. Substantial compliance with statutory requirements: The petitioner argued that there was substantial compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act, as the petition was accompanied by the requisite number of copies, and each copy bore the petitioner's signature. The court, however, referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, and Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, which emphasized that substantial compliance must not include serious or vital mistakes that undermine the "true copy" requirement. The court also noted the Supreme Court's stance in Rajendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani, which highlighted that it is not the respondent's duty to verify the correctness of the copy supplied. The absence of the Notary's endorsement on the affidavit meant that the returned candidate could not verify whether the affidavit was sworn correctly, thereby failing to meet the substantial compliance standard. Conclusion: The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the returned candidate and dismissed the election petition due to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The absence of the Notary's endorsement on the affidavit was considered a substantial defect that prejudiced the returned candidate, leading to the dismissal of the petition with costs.
|
