9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing material facts. 2. Non-compliance with the requirement of an affidavit in the prescribed form. 3. Alleged corrupt practices and their impact on the election result. 4. Procedural propriety in dismissing the election petition at the threshold. Summary: Issue 1: Compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing material facts The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the election petition did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing material facts to disclose a cause of action. The Court emphasized that "material facts" are primary or basic facts necessary to prove the cause of action. The election petition lacked specific averments on how the alleged omissions by the Returning Officer materially affected the election result, thus failing to meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Issue 2: Non-compliance with the requirement of an affidavit in the prescribed form The election petition was also dismissed for not being supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form, as required under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act. The Supreme Court reiterated that non-filing of an affidavit in support of allegations of corrupt practices is an incurable and fatal defect, rendering the petition liable to be dismissed. Issue 3: Alleged corrupt practices and their impact on the election result The election petitioner alleged several corrupt practices, including the Returning Officer's failure to circulate specimen signatures, the first respondent's pressure tactics, and the circulation of a fabricated 'Fatva'. However, the petitioner conceded that without the requisite affidavit, the ground of corrupt practices could not be pressed. The Court noted that the allegations lacked the necessary material facts to constitute a complete cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. Issue 4: Procedural propriety in dismissing the election petition at the threshold The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that the High Court should not have exercised its power under Order VI Rule 16 or Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the election petition at the threshold. The Court held that the provisions of the Code apply to the trial of an election petition, and the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition to prevent meaningless litigation. The Court also clarified that the absence of Section 83 in Section 86 of the Act does not preclude the dismissal of an election petition for non-disclosure of material facts. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of furnishing material facts and the requisite affidavit, thereby upholding the election of the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
