ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR versus NARESH KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 20-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 10 
A 
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR 
v. 
NARESH KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 5679 of 2009) 
,. 
B 
AUGUST 20, 2009 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, Jj,J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
+ 
c 
Sections 77, 83, 100, 123 - Election - Election to 
Legislative Assembly - Election Petition challenging the 
election of the returned candidate - Allegation of corrupt 
practice - ·Election Petition allowed by the High Court - On 
.. 
/ 
appeal, Held: All those facts which are essential to clothe the 
D election petitioner with a complete cause of action are material 
.., 
facts which must be pleaded and failure to place even a single 
.... 
material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of 
Section 83(1)(a) - On facts the election petition read as a 
whose does not disclose any cause of action - Conduct of 
E Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 94A ·-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908, Order 6 Rule 113i Order 7 Rule 11(a) . 
. Words & Phrases: 
.f 
"Material facts" -
Meaning of in the context of 
t-
F Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
The appellant was the returned candidate from a 
legislative ·constituency, having secured 10705 votes out 
of the total 19657 votes polled. Respondent who had 
secured only 275 votes filed an election petition 
G challenging the election of appellant on the grounds that 
in seven villages in his constitue_l'_lcy the appellant got 13 
bore wells constructed at his own cost; and also provided 
ambulances to five villages and for the abovesaid alleged 
corrupt practices the appellant had incurred expenditure 
H 
10 
~ 
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 
11 
SHIGAONKAR 
,. 
crossing the limit of Rs.5,00,000/- prescribed under the 
A 
}-
Act and the Rules, and that these were done after 
issuance of election Notification. The High Court 
concluded that the election petition read as a whole 
disclosed material facts and allowed the election petition . 
. Hence the appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There are no averments to the effect 
whether such bore holes were dug with the consent andJ 
or active knowledge of the appellant. The estimates of c 
cost involved supplied in the election petition are also 
limited to the cost of drilling the bore holes and not of 
installing the water drawing plant and machinery in them 
to draw water from the bore holes. As such, the said 
,.. 
pleading is totally general and vague in nature: [Para 10) 
D 
.. 
[19-A-B] 
1.2. There are absolutely no averments with regard 
to which villagers or electors had used such ambulances 
and for whose benefit such ambulances were deploye~ E 
so as to constitute 'bribe' to the voters and that to an 
extent that would have influenced the outcome of the 
election. It is stated that any company operating mines 
on large scale with heavy machinery is under a statutory 
duty to maintain safety at the mines and is, as such, 
F 
statutorily required to provide required facilities including 
deployment of ambulances in adequate numbers at 
various mines to ensure safety of the persons workin~ 
at these mines. The various mines of Salgaoncar Mining 
Industries ... are spread over large areas falling in the 
G 
constituency. The petition is absolutely devoid of any 
averment with regard to such ambulances being 
specifically deployed for the benefit of any elector in the 
constituency much less a number of electors who would 
have benefited from such service even if not admitted but 
proved to be true that could have influenced the election 
H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
" 
A so as to change its outcome. [Paras 12. and 13] [19-F-H; 
20-A-B] 
-f 
1.3. The respondent has failed to give particulars 
regarding parking of the ambulances i.e. where the~e 
B ambulances were parked; in which villages they were 
parked; whether there was any driver to drive the said 
ambulances and as to where they were parked. Similarly, 
. the respondent failed to give particulars regarding the 
+ 
bore wells whose cost as alleged amounts to Rs.6,38,557/ 
c -. Similarly, expenditure_ of Rs.12,50,000/- has been alleged 
to have been made for the ·purchase of ambulances. The 
particulars have not been provided. It is not clear as to 
how the respondent has come to the figure of 
,-. 
Rs.5,00,000/- which according to him has been spent by 
D 
the appell~nt. He did not give any particulars regarding 
y 
either of the bore wells or the ambulances. [Para 20] [22-
' 
8-D]

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