9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Non-compliance with Section 82 The appellant contended that the election petition improperly included Ballu or Balji as a respondent, who was not a contesting candidate, thereby violating Section 82 of the Act. Section 82 mandates that all contesting candidates must be made parties to the election petition. The court concluded that while Ballu or Balji was not a contesting candidate, the inclusion of an unnecessary party does not constitute a breach of Section 82. The court stated, "if all the necessary parties have been joined to the election petition, the circumstance that a person who is not a necessary party has also been impleaded does not amount to a breach of the provisions of s. 82." The court emphasized that the Tribunal could strike out the name of the unnecessary party, and the petition should not be dismissed for this reason. Issue 2: Non-compliance with Section 81(3) The appellant argued that the copies of the election petition served were not true copies as required by Section 81(3) because they lacked the petitioner's signature and had discrepancies in the verification clause. The court clarified that the term "copy" does not mean an absolutely exact copy but one that is sufficiently accurate to avoid misunderstanding. The court stated, "the word 'copy' in sub-s. (3) of s. 81 does not mean an absolutely exact copy, but means that the copy shall be so true that nobody can by any possibility misunderstand it." The court found that the defects in the copies did not mislead the appellant and thus did not constitute non-compliance with Section 81(3). Issue 3: Non-compliance with Section 83 The appellant contended that the affidavit accompanying the election petition was not in the prescribed form and was improperly sworn, violating Section 83. The court agreed with the Election Tribunal that the affidavit was in the prescribed form but contained a verification error due to the inexperience of the Oaths Commissioner. The court stated, "the mistake of the Oaths Commissioner in verifying the affidavit cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petitioner's petition summarily, as the provision of s. 83 are not necessarily to be complied with in order to make a petition valid and such affidavit can be allowed to be filed at a later stage also." Additional Points: - The court also addressed defects in the verification of Election Petition No. 269 of 1962, agreeing with the Election Tribunal that these defects were not fatal and could be remedied. - Regarding Election Petition No. 295 of 1962, the court found that the absence of enclosures in the copy served on the appellant did not amount to non-compliance with Section 81(3), as the essential information was included in the petition. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed with costs, as the court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding non-compliance with Sections 82, 81(3), and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court emphasized that minor defects that do not mislead or cause prejudice do not warrant the dismissal of election petitions.
|
