DHOOM SINGH versus PRAKASH CHANDRA SETHI & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 20-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
11 
DHOOM STNGH 
\' '• 
PRAKASH CHANDRA SETH[ & ORS. 
February 20, 1975 
[M. H. BEG, A. AlAGIRISWAMl AND N. L. UNTWAL!A, JJ.] 
~t·prcsent~~lon of /'copfc Act 195l-Scctio11 81(3), 86(1)-116-A if a11 
l'iecllon 
pet1t1011a 
co/111.m-e/y or frm1du/e11tly 
rcfrai11 from 
prosecuting tlie 
appea! whether a11otlzc1· l'Otl'I' can apply to proceed \\'ith the petitio11er-l11ter-
pretatw11 of .lfat11te-Lacr111a. 
Respondent No. 1 was elected to Madhya Pradesh legislative Assembly. 
Third respondent filed an Election Petition for declaring the election of tht: first 
re~~nden~ v<;iid. 
Respondent No. 1 ~ade a1~ .application to _the High Court 
raismg obJect10n that copy of the election pettuon and the affidavit served 011 
him were not signed and that it amounted to non-compliance with section 81 (3) 
of the Representation of People Act. 1951, and the election petition was liable to 
be dismissed under section 86(1 ). Several persons including appellant intervened 
to say that respondent No. 3 had colluded with respondent No. I and that as a 
matter of fa~t there was no non-compliance with the requirement of section 81 ( 3). 
The appellant offered to sub>tantiate bis allegation. 
The intervention applica· 
tions fileC: were rejected by the High Court. The High Court held that there was 
non-compliance with section 81 (3) and, therefore, dismissed the election petition. 
The appellant filed an appeal to this Court under section 116-A of the Act. In 
the alternative, he prnyeJ to treat it as ·the petition under Article 136. 
This 
Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal to treat it as a Special Leave Petition and 
granted Special leave. The appellant was n!5t permitted to challenge the order 
of the High Court made under section 86. He was, however, allowed to challenge 
the refusal of the High Court to allow him to intervene. 
The appellant con-
tended : 
( I ) 
(2) 
That in substance and effect the action of the third respondent w"s. 
tantamount '.o withdrawal of his election petition and in that view 
of the matter the procedure prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the· 
Act ought to have been followed and given effect to. 
That in any view of the m~tter resr>ondent no. 3 should riot have 
been permitted to walk out of the field without an investigation of 
the facts allegeJ by the appellant which if found true, would have 
shown that there was no non-compliance with the requirement of tl1e 
law and the election petition was not liable to be dismissed under· 
section 86. 
(3) Ill an election disrmte the whole constituency is interested and any 
elector of that cons•itl'ency from which a candidate had bren returned 
and whose election has been challenged can intervene in the matter. 
HELD : It is difficult io acceot that in ~ubstance and in effect th~ action of 
respondent No. 3 even assuming that it was collusive or fraudulent had the effect 
of withdrawing his election petition. The legislature has chosen to make special 
provisions for the continuance of the election petition only in ca-se of it< withdra-
wal or abatement. It is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion as to 
whether omission to do so is deliberate or inadvertant. Tt may be a case of Casus 
omis<.us. It is a well-known rule of -construction of statu'.es that a Statute, even 
more tha.n a contract. must be construed, ut res magis va/est auam pe·e11:. <O 'hat 
the intentions of the Legislature canno~ be treated a< vain or left to ope•ate in the 
<iir. 
Another consequence of this rnle is that a statute cannot be ex•ended to 
meet a case for which provision has clearly and undonbtedly not been made. 
[593H; 5998-Dl 
Shed!ta11 Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam ( 1969) 3 S.C.R. 417 disti•nguished. 
HELD FURTHER : There is undoubtedlv a lacuna in the Act because it 
m~kc> provision when an election petitioner is ·allowed to withdraw but makes no 
59 6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975) 3 s.c.R. 
· ,uch provi~ion if he just r.efuses to prosecute it. However, in such conti11g1~ncy, 
if thought neces>ary it is for the Legislature to intervene. The Court w~1s help-
k<s. The appeal was dismissed. [6000] 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 1973. 
i 
. 
From the Judgment & Order dated the 23rd January, 1973 of 
thc Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. J 3 or 197~. 
S. P. Gupta, S. S. Khanduja and E. C. Agarwala, for the Appel-
·'J:tnt .• 
Ram P1•11jwmu, C. S. S. Rao, iJ. N. Mishra, J. 8. Dadadia11ji am! 
O.C. Mathur, for Responde

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