ANIL R. DESHMUKH versus ONKAR N. WAGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 21-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANIL R. DESHMUKH 
-+-• 
v. 
ONKAR N. WAGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 21, 1999 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI., M. SRINIVASAN AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
-1 
Electio11 Law : 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 81, 82, 83(1)(c) and 
c 86(1). 
Electi 011 petition-Maintainability o~Affidavit-Copy-Serving 
of-Defect ilt-<:urability of-Affidavit in support of allegations of corrnpt 
practices filed along with petition-However, only a trne copy of the original 
affidavit 11ot be01ing the notarial endorsement or seal or stamp of attesting 
D officer served on the retumed candidate-But before hearing of the preliminary 
' 
objection regarding non-supply of original affidavit, a tlUe copy of the affidavit 
"'-
containing endorsement of verification etc. served on the retumed candidate 
a11d his counsel-Held : Jn the circumstances of the case, there is sufficient 
compliance with Ss. 81(3) a11d 83(J)(c) since the tme copy of the affidavit is 
E served before hearing of the petition-There/ ore, even assuming that the copies 
served in the first instance to be not in conj onnity with the provisions of the 
Act, still the election petition is maintainable-Conduct of Elections Rules, 
1961, R. 94-A. 
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected to the State Legislative 
F Assembly. The appellant filed an election petition before the High Court 
,.-
fm· declaring the election to be void and illegal and for declaring the 
-}> 
·appellant as duly elected. The petition contained allegations of corrupt 
practices as against respondent No. 1. An affidavit was filed in support of 
the said allegation as required by the proviso to Section 83(l)(c) of the 
G Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, only a true copy of the 
original affidavit not bearing the notarial endorsement or seal or stamp 
~
of the attesting officer was served no respondent No. 1 along with a copy 
·-.,r 
of the petition. 
Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the election 
H petition should be dismissed in limine for non- compliance of Section 83(1) 
188 
ANILR.DESHMUKHv. ONKARN.WAGH 
189 
.. + 
of the Act since the copy of the affidavit served on respondent No. 1 was A 
not the true copy of the affidavit. However, subsequently but before the 
hearing of the preliminary objection, a true copy of the affidavit containing 
the endorsement of verification etc. was served on respondent No. 1. The 
High Court dismissed the election petition on preliminary issues without 
trial. Hence this appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Even before arguments were heard on the preliminary 
objection by the High Court in this case, the true copies of the affidavits 
had been served on respondent No. 1 and his counsel. In the facts and c 
circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that there was sufficient 
compliance of the provisions of Section 81(3) read with Section 83(1)(c) of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 even if it could be said that the 
copies served in the first instance on respondent No. 1 were not in 
conformity with the provisions of the Act. Hence the election petition is 
, 
maintainable. [197-B-C] 
\ 
D 
~ 
Murarka Radheshyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, [1964) 3 
SCR 573 and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, 
[1964) 6 SCR 213, followed. 
Kamalam (M) v. Dr. VA. Syed Mohammad, [1978) 3 SCR 446 and E 
FA. Sapa v. Singora, [1991) 3 SCC 375, relied on. 
Dr. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shanti Lal, [1996) 5 SCC 181, held inapplicable. 
Purnshottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati, AIR (1992) Born 227, 
" 
referred to. 
F 
-I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1731 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.11.96 of the Bombay High 
Court in E.P. No. 3 of 1995 . 
G 
.. 
~· 
A.M. Khanwilkar and Ms. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant. 
Prashant Kumar for the Respondent No. 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his 
-t-· 
election petition No. 3/95 by the Bench at Aurangabad of the High Court 
of Bombay on preliminary issues without trial. 
2. The first respondent was declared elected at the election to the 
B 
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 9.2.95 for 96 Pachora Con-
stituency. The· appellant filed the petition for declaring the election to be 
void and illegal and for declaring him as duly elected. In view of the limited 
~ 
scope of this appeal, it is unnecessary to refer to th

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