LexA. MADAN MOHAN versus KALAVAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E ,
F
G
894
A. MADAN MOHAN
v ..
KALA VAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA
February 14, 1984
(S. MURT AZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Representation of the Peo_ple A~t, 1951;
·Sections 81, 82 and 86-Schedu/es and'annexure~; to election petition 1101
·served on the opposite party-Fai/ure-Wheiher renders the petition liable to be
rejected in llmine.
The respondent fi)ed an election petition in the High Court allegin&
that th~ returned candidate (petitioner herein) had committed corrupt prac·
tices which rendered his election void. The returned candidate made an
application stating that the respondent had committed breach of the manda·
tor.y provisions of section 81 (3) in that with the copy of the election petition
served on him, copies of documents and schedules which formed an integral
part of the election petition, had not been enclosed and that for this reason
the election petition was liable to be dismissed in liminc unJer section 86.
The High Court dismissed his application. In the special leave petition the
returned candidate has urged the same argument advanced by him before the
High Court.
Dismissing the pciition,
HELD : There is no requirement of law that the documents or sche-
dules to the election petition should also be served on the candidate because if
they were filed in Court il is always open;to the returned candidate to inspect
them and find out the allegations made· in the petition. Documents or sche·
dules do~not forn1 an integral part of the election petition. [897E-F]
In the instant case all that was necessa.ry to be done by the election
petitioner had been done. The election petition was accompanied by as many
copies as there were responden:s. It was duly verified and copies thereof
were accompanied by necessary schedµlcs containing the details of corrupt
practices and the schedules were also signed by the pet!tioner. [897£..F]
-·
A. id. MOHAN v. KALAVAKUNTA (Fazal Ali, J.)
Sahodrabai Rat v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [1968. 3 SCR and M. V. Hamle,
[1983) 2 sec 473, held inapplicable.
T
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 11868 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 16th July, 1983 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Application No. 53 of 83.
So/i J. . Sorabjce, V.R. Reddy; K. Rajendra Chowdhary and
K. Shivraj Chowdhary for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAzAL ALI, J: .This petition for special leav~ is directed
against an interlocutory Order dated July 16, 1983 of the Andhra
·Pradesh High Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for
dismissing the election petition of the respondent in limine under
s. 86 of the Repsesentaiion of the People Act (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act'.)
The petition arises out. of an election to the Siddipets
Assembly Constituency in Andhra Pradesh which took place on
January 5, 1983. The petitioner was declared elected to the said
Assembly. The respondent filed an election petition in the High
Court alleging certain corrupt practices.
The short point for consideration before us is as to" whether
or not the election petition was liable to be dismissed in /imine
under s. 86 of the Act as the copies of the documents and sche·
dules, which formed an integral part of the election petition, were
not supplied to the petitioner which amounted to a clear breach
of the mandatory provisions contained in s. 81 (3) of the Act.
· The High Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the
application of the petitioner for throwing out the election petition
of the respondent in /imine
We have· heard counsel for the
parties at. length and it seems to us that the matter is no longer
res integra and is covered by a decision of this Court is Sahodrabai
Rai v.
Ram Singh Aharwar (') to which we shall refer hereafter.
--------
(!) (1968) 3 s.c.R. 13.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
896
SUPREME COURT R!PORTS
it984) 2. S.C.R.
On the findings of the High Court three facts are clearly
proved:
(a) that when the election petition was filed, it was accom-
panied by as many copies as were.the respondents,
(b) that the election petition was duly verified and the copies.
thereof were accompanied by the necessary schedules
containing the details of corrupt practices, and
(c) that the schedules or the annexures to the petition were
also .signed by the election petitioner (respondent).
The only complaint of the petitioner wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.