AJAY KUMAR POEIA versus SHYAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 11-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJAY KUMAR POEIA 
v. 
SHY AM AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 : 
Ss. 21(1)(3) and 81(1) Election Petition-Statements of material 
C facts-Requirement of-Election petition based on the ground that re-
turned candidate did not belong to Scheduled Caste-Application under 
Order 6, r. 16 CPC for striking out the grounds and certain other 
paragraphs of election petition for not containing material facts-Held, 
documents mentioned in relevant paragraphs indicate that the petitioner 
D in effect or substance did not raise any material fact that returned 
candidate was not a member of Scheduled Caste-One of the sub-
paragraphs contains grounds for setting aside the improper acceptance of 
nomination papers filed by returned candidate and the same cannot be 
treated to be statements containing requisite material facts, which, if 
proved, would entitle the petitioner in obtaining reliefs sought for-
E Furthermore, the said statements were verified and purported to be based 
on legal advice-The said averments do not satisfy the requirement of 
s. 81(1) and as such the plea is not available to the petitioner-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 6, r.16. 
f 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4090 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in E.P. No. 8 of 2002. 
G 
R.C. Srivastva and Ms. Rachna Srivastava for the Appellants. 
Nariman, Rajiv Datta and M.P. Shorawala for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was ·delivered : 
H 
The Election Commission issued a Notification calling upon the 
690 
• 
A.K. POEIA v. SHY AM 
691 
electorates to elect the Members of the Legislative Assembly in the State A 
of U.P. The date of Notification of election was 16th January, 2002 and 
the last date for filing nomination papers was 23rd January, 2002. The last 
date for withdrawal of nomination was 28th January, 2002. The date of 
pol1 was 21st February, 2002. In the said election, the appellant herein and 
respondent No. l were the contestirig candidates. As a result of counting B 
of votes, respondent No. I was declared elected as having received the 
majority of valid votes. The appellant herein filed a petition questioning 
the election of respondent No. I as Member of Legislative Assembly from 
346 Govardhan (S.C.) Assembly Constituency. The election petition 
purported to be based on the ground that respondent No. l is not a member 
of Scheduled Caste. After the notices were issued by the High Court in the C 
election petition, respondent No. l filed an application under Order 6 Rule 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1998, for striking off the grounds (i) to 
(v) and paragraphs 5-29 of election petition on the ground that those 
paragraphs did not contain material facts as required under Section 81 (3) 
of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). The High D 
Court was of the view that since no fact warranting declaring the election 
of the respondent herein void had been alleged and the documents referred 
to therein having not been supplied, the same does not satisfy the 
requirement of Section 81 of the Act. Since the election of respondent No. 
I was not challenged on any other ground, the High Court dismissed the E 
petition. It is in this way, the appellant has preferred this appeal under 
Section l l 6A of the Act, challenging the judgment of the High Court. 
We have heard counsel for the parties. 
The sole question which arises in this case is whether there was a F 
pleading as regards the grounds that respondent No. l is not a member of 
the Scheduled Caste. The relevant paragraphs to this effect runs as under: 
"4. That the election of respondent No. I (Shyam) is void 
on the following grounds : 
G 
GROUNDS 
(i) 
(ii) 
Because the respondent No. 1 with the malafide intention H 
692 
A 
B 
c 
D 
(iii) 
6. 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
l.\nd freud (sic), obtair:ied a caste certificate showing himself 
a person belonging to scheduled caste and wrongly and 
fra,1;1~ulent (sic) contested the election from the seat which 
i_s reserved for sc.heduled caste where as in fact he does not 
_belong to s_cheduled caste. 
That the respondent No. 1 had filed the nomination paper 
and annexed his caste certificate showing himself to be of 
scheduled caste. The caste certificate was issued in favour 
. 
. 
. 
of the respondent No. 1 by Tehsildar, Ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.