9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Is the affidavit filed by the petitioner defective? 2. If yes, is the petition liable to be dismissed? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1(a): Is the affidavit filed by the petitioner defective? The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.1 on the grounds of corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition was accompanied by an affidavit as required under Section 83 of the Act and Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in Form 25. The respondent No.1 contended that the affidavit was defective as it did not disclose the source of information and the grounds of belief for the allegations of corrupt practices, which he argued was required under Order 19, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court analyzed the requirements of Form 25 and the provisions of Order 19, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was noted that Form 25 does not explicitly require the disclosure of the source of information. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan, where it was held that the affidavit must comply with the requirements of the High Court Rules, which included the disclosure of the source of information. However, the court distinguished this case by noting that the Bombay High Court had no such rules requiring the disclosure of the source of information. The court concluded that since the affidavit complied with Form 25 and there were no specific rules by the Bombay High Court requiring the disclosure of the source of information, the affidavit was not defective. The purpose of the affidavit in election petitions is to prevent wild allegations of corrupt practices, not to serve as evidence. Thus, the failure to disclose the source of information did not render the affidavit defective. Issue 1(b): If yes, is the petition liable to be dismissed? The court examined whether the non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act, specifically the failure to disclose the source of information in the affidavit, would lead to the dismissal of the petition under Section 86 of the Act. Section 86 mandates the dismissal of petitions for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82, or 117, but not for non-compliance with Section 83. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam v. Roop Singh, which held that a defect in verification under Section 83 is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition. The court also highlighted that the Legislature did not intend for non-compliance with Section 83 to result in the dismissal of the petition, as evidenced by the absence of any such provision in the Act. The court concluded that even if the affidavit was considered defective, it would not lead to the dismissal of the petition. Therefore, the petition was not liable to be dismissed. Conclusion: The court answered issue No.1(a) in the negative, finding that the affidavit was not defective. Consequently, issue No.1(b) did not arise, and if necessary, the finding was that the petition was not liable to be dismissed. The trial of the petition would proceed further. Order: The court ordered accordingly, allowing the trial of the petition to proceed.
|
