1963 (3) TMI 79 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Right to withdraw an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Applicability of Sections 109 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to the withdrawal of appeals.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The appellant was elected to the Orissa Legislative Assembly, and an election petition was filed by respondent No. 1, alleging non-compliance with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election tribunal dismissed the petition, deeming the defect fatal under Section 90(3) of the Act. The High Court later set aside this dismissal and remanded the petition for disposal according to law.

2. Right to Withdraw an Appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The appellant contended that Satrughna Sahu had an absolute right to withdraw his appeal under Order XXIII, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the High Court erred in applying principles analogous to Sections 109 and 110 of the Act. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 116-A, which provides that the High Court shall have the same powers, jurisdiction, and authority as in appeals from original decrees passed by civil courts. The Court concluded that there was no express provision in Chapter IV-A of the Act limiting the High Court's power regarding the withdrawal of appeals. Therefore, the High Court should have allowed the unconditional withdrawal of the appeal.

3. Applicability of Sections 109 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to the Withdrawal of Appeals:
Sections 109 and 110 deal specifically with the withdrawal of election petitions, not appeals. The Supreme Court noted that if Parliament intended these sections to apply to appeals, it would have included an express provision in Section 116-A. The Court emphasized that the High Court has the same powers in the matter of withdrawal of appeals as it does in appeals from original decrees, without importing limitations from Sections 109 and 110. The Court also dismissed concerns about the purity of elections being compromised, stating that the trial before the tribunal generally safeguards such purity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that the appeal before the High Court should stand withdrawn based on the unconditional application for withdrawal made by Satrughna Sahu. The Court found no merit in the High Court's decision to treat the withdrawal application as if it were for an election petition and refer it to the election tribunal. No order as to costs was made.