BIDESH SINGH versus MADHU SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1074 · Decided: 23-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BIDESH SINGH 
V. 
MAOHU SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.) 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
ss. 81,82,86 and 117 read with ss. lOO(l)(b) and lOO(l)(d)(iilj-
C Election petition-Infirmity in verification and service of a copy thereof on 
respondent-Effect of-Election petition challenging election of returned 
candidate on the ground of illegality in rejection of 258 ballot papers and 
seeking inspection and scrutiny thereof-Returned candidate filing 
application for dismissal of election petition for non-service of signed and 
verified copy of election petition on him and on the ground of estoppel-
D High Court allowing the applicatian holding that election petitioner had 
himself given a certificate that the counting was correct-Held, admittedly 
the election petition did not suffer on account of a defect in the requirements 
of s.81 or s.82 or s.117 and the same could not have been dismissed for non-
compliance of these provisions-Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of 
E s.86 is limited and the election petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold 
even for non-compliance of s. 83-There is difference between the requirement 
of pleading as regards an election petition based on s. J 00(1 )( d)(iii) and the 
one based on s. JOO(l)(b)-Jn case of an election petition based on 
s. IOO(l)(d)(iii), the election petitioner is required to set out the material 
F facts and particulars in as much as to make out a prima facie case for 
inspection or scrutiny of the ballot papers-Where the Tribunal finds that 
the material facts set out in such an election petition are lacking, the election 
petitioner is entitled to supply necessary material facts and particulars 
under Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure-The question as to 
whether the election petitioner was estopped and precluded from raising 
G the contentions in his election petition as regards the validity or otherwise 
of the 258 ballot papers, was a matter which could have been gone into only 
at the trial-The election petition could have been allowed or dismissed by 
the Tribunal having regard to the provisions contained in Section IOO(J)(e) 
of the Act only after a fall dressed trial and upon giving opportunity to the 
H parties to examine themselves and/or their witnesses in support of their 
1074 
.... 
j
BIDESH SINGH v. MAOHU SINGH 
1075 
respective cases -The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 86 of A 
the Act-Order of High Court set aside-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-
r. 94-A. 
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, AIR (2001) SC 600, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4402 of B 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.02 of the High Court of 
Jharkhand Judicature at Ranchi in Election Petition No. 2 of 2000. 
Amitesh Kumar and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellant. 
Amarendra Sharan, Irshad Ahmad and Samir Ali Khan for the 
Respondents. 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : 
This is an appeal against the judgment of Jharkhand High Court 
dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant herein. 
c 
D 
The electors of 318 Panki Legislative Assembly Constitutency were E 
called upon by the Election Commission to elect a member for the then 
Bihar Legislative Assembly. 24th January, 2000 was fixed as the last date 
for filing nomination papers, whereas the date fixed for scrutiny of 
nomination papers was 25th January, 2000. As per the programme, the 
polling was to take place on 12th February, 2000. As a result of counting F 
of votes, the respondent No. I herein was declared elected having been 
polled 17095 valid votes whereas the appellant herein was shown to have 
secured 17058 valid votes. The appellant herein filed an election petition 
challenging the election of respondent No. I herein-returned candidate 
wherein prayers for setting aside the election of the returned candidate and 
a further relief that he may be declared elected from 318 Panki Legislative G 
Assembly Constituency after inspection and scrutiny of 258 illegally 
rejected ballot papers in respect of Booth No. 35, were made. 
Respondent No. I instead of filing a written statement.Jn the election 
petition, filed an application purported to be under Sections 81, 83 and H 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 86( I) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred 
to as "the Act") and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 
(he

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