CHAUGULE versus BHAGWAT

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1031 · Decided: 04-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012) 3 S.C.R. 1031 
CHAUGULE 
v. 
BHAGWAT 
(Civil Appeal No. 3373 of 2012) 
APRIL 4, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR & SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.110(3)(c) -
Withdrawal of election petition - Right to be substituted in 
place of the original election petitioner - Election petition filed 
C 
by 'Y' had been allowed to be withdrawn on an application filed 
by 'Y' - Substitution application filed by respondent in the said 
Election petition after it had already been allowed to be 
withdrawn - Allowed by High Court - Justification of - Held: 
Not justified - Clause (c) of s. 110(3) permits "a person, who o 
might himself have been a Petitioner", to apply for substitution 
as Petitioner in place of the party withdrawing - However the 
said expression has to fit in the facts of each case - The 
expression "a person who might himself have been a 
Petitioner'; would not apply in a case like the present one, in 
E 
which the right to be exercised did not concern the actions of 
the person elected on the grounds, as contemplated in 
ss.100(1) and 101 of the Act, which provide for grounds for 
declaring the elections to be void - In the instant case, the 
complaint in the Election Petition was that the nomination 
F 
paper of the Election Petitioner 'Y' had been wrongly rejected 
by the Returning Officer - Respondent, who had been 
substituted in place of 'Y', did not have the same interest as 
'Y' -
The election Petition filed by 'Y' was an action in 
personam and, was, therefore, confined to his own situation 
G 
- Had it been an action in rem, the High Court may have been 
justified in substituting the Respondent in place of the original 
Election Petitioner - Grievance of the original Election 
Petitioner 'Y' was not against the elected candidate, but 
1031 
H 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A against the action of Returning Officer in rejecting his 
nomination paper - Once the Election Petitioner 'Y' decided 
not to pursue the matter, the Election Petition could not have 
been continued by the Respondent. 
8 
The appellant was elected to the Maharashtra 
Legislative Assembly. 'Y', an independent candidate, filed 
Election Petition contending that his nomination paper 
was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. While the 
Election Petition was pending hearing, 'Y' filed application 
for withdrawal of the Election Petition. The High Court 
C allowed the application, particularly since no corrupt 
practice had been alleged in the election petition and the 
election petition was, therefore, disposed of as 
withdrawn. Within 14 days of the said order, Respondent 
filed application under Section 110(3)(c) of the 
D Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the said 
Election Petition, which had been disposed of as 
withdrawn, for substituting his name as Election 
Petitioner in place of 'Y'. Respondent had neither filed any 
nomination paper, nor contested the election and did not 
E even allege any corrupt practice against the Appellant. He 
filed the said application, only on the ground that he was 
entitled to continue with the Election Petition under 
Section 116 of the Act. The High Court held that on a 
conjoint reading of Section 78(b), Section 81 (1) and 
F Section 110(3)(c) of the Act, the respondent was entitled 
to be substituted in place of 'Y' for continuing the Election 
Petition, notwithstanding that the same had already been 
allowed to be withdrawn on the application filed by 'Y'. 
Hence the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 81 of the of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies the Respondent from 
maintaining an election petition, since he was not entitled 
CHAUGULE v. BHAGWAT 
1033 
to invoke any of the grounds set out in Sections 100(1) 
A 
and 101 of the Act. [Para 13] [1039-8] 
1.2. Section 110 of the Act refers to the procedure for 
withdrawal of the Election Petition. Clause (c) of Section 
110(3) permits a person, who might himself have been a 
Petitioner, to apply for substitution as Petitioner in place 
B 
of the party withdrawing. However the said expression 
cannot be held to apply across the board in all cases, but 
has to fit in the facts of each case. In the instant case, the 
Election Petition filed by 'Y' was an action in personam 
and, was, therefore, confined to his own situation. Had it C 
been an action in rem, the High Court may have been 
justified in substituting the Respo

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