BASHIR MUSA PATEL versus SATYAWAN GANPAT .JAWKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 02-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BASHIR MUSA PATEL 
A 
v. 
SATYAWAN GANPAT .JAWKAR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of Peoples Ac~ 1951: Section 86(5). 
Election Petition-Allegation of cornipt practices-Requirement to give 
required particulars-Power of Cowt to give direction:r--Election petition filed C 
by respondent:r--Allegation of cornipt practices against appellant-Appellant's 
contention that required particula1' of conupt practices were lacl<ing-Single 
Judge of the High Court held that particulars were lacking but directed the 
party to furnish the particulars-C/1allenge to direction issued by High 
Court-Held, having found that particulars were missing, the learned Judge 
had committed an obvious error in giving the direction to fumish those D 
particulars; in other words, provided an opportunity to the respondents to fill 
in the gap which would gravely prejudice the appellant at the triaf-171e 
impugned direction stands set aside. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15705 of E 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11/12.2.91 of the Bombay High 
Court in E.P. No. 13 of 1990. 
Jatin Jhaveri and H.J. Jhaveri for the Appellant. 
AM. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned 
single Judge of the Bombay High Court, made on 11/12-2-1991 in Election 
Petition No. 13/90. It is not necessary to adumberate all the corrupt 
practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant mentioned in 
F 
G 
the election petition filed by the respondents. It would appear that the H 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A appellant had filed an application to dismiss the election petition on a 
preliminary ground that the .required particulars of corrupt practices are 
lacking in the election petition and, therefore, no cause of action has been 
furnished to proceed further in the election petition. That objection was 
over-ruled. Subsequently, a petition has been filed to dismiss the election 
B petition itself. In the impugned order, the learned Judge while holding that 
"the particulars are lacking" has held that what is missing from the petition 
are "merely particulars" and held that under Section 86(5) of the Repre-
sentation of People's Act, the Court has discretion to direct the P,arty to 
furnish the particulars. Accordingly, he directed to furnish the particulars 
as mentioned in the operative part of the order which reads thus : 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"(l). In para 5 of the Petition in respect of each instance set out 
under sub-para (a) to (e) the petitioner shall state whether the 
instances set out therein have been managed by Respondent No. 
1, or his Election Agent or by supporters of Respondent No. 1 
with the consent of Respondent No. 1. If it is alleged that it is done 
by supporters, Petitioner to state the names of the supporters and 
if the names are not available to state that the names are not 
available. 
(2) In para 6(a) of the Petition, the names of the three persons 
who had come to cast bogus votes to be supplied. If such names 
are not available, Petitioner to state that the names are not avail-
able. 
(3) In para 6(b) of the Petition, Mr. Chinoy had, during the course 
of his argument, clarified that it was not the case of the Petitioner 
that delible ink for marking fingers was used because it was so 
managed by Respondent No. 1 or his Election Agent or any of his 
supporters with the consent of the Petitioner or Respondent No. 
1. The Petitioner to so state in the Schedule now to be given, 
Further the Petitioner must give the names of hirelings and goon-
das of Respondent No. 1, if available. if not available to so state. 
The Petitioner to also give the names of the Presiding and Polling 
Officers at the various Booths mentioned therein and who accord-
ing to the Petitioner, have been favouring and/or openly supporting 
Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner also to state whether the acts 
of booth capturing was managed by Respondent No. 1 and/or/ his 
B.M.PATELv.S.G.JAWKAR 
431 
Election Agent and/or supporters (whose names must be supplied A 
if available) with the consent of Respondent No. 1 or his Election 
Agent; 
(4) In para 6(c) of the Petition in respect of each instances set out 
in sub-paras (i) to (v) the Petitioner to give the same particulars 
as those set out hereinabove in respect of para 6(b) viz. whether 
it i

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