9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices by the appellant. 2. Compliance with Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Material facts and particulars in the election petition. 4. Impact of non-compliance with procedural requirements on the maintainability of the election petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices by the Appellant: The respondent alleged that the appellant indulged in corrupt practices by constructing 13 bore wells and providing ambulances to lure voters. The appellant refuted these allegations, arguing that the election petition lacked material facts and did not comply with Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant contended that the allegations were vague and did not demonstrate how the voters were influenced to vote in his favor. 2. Compliance with Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 83(1) requires an election petition to contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. The appellant argued that the election petition did not meet these requirements, as it lacked specific details about the alleged corrupt practices, such as the names of the parties involved, the dates and places of the alleged acts, and how these acts influenced the election outcome. 3. Material Facts and Particulars in the Election Petition: The Court emphasized the importance of material facts in an election petition. It referred to several precedents, including Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, which established that the absence of material facts leads to an incomplete cause of action. The Court noted that the respondent failed to provide essential details, such as whether the bore wells were operational, the specific voters influenced, and the deployment details of the ambulances. The Court concluded that the petition lacked the necessary material facts to substantiate the allegations of corrupt practices. 4. Impact of Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements on the Maintainability of the Election Petition: The Court reiterated that non-compliance with Section 83(1) is fatal to the maintainability of an election petition. It highlighted that the failure to provide a concise statement of material facts and particulars renders the petition liable to be dismissed. The Court found that the High Court had erred in not dismissing the petition at the preliminary stage, as it did not disclose a cause of action due to the lack of material facts. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, concluding that the election petition lacked material facts and did not comply with Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
