DIPAK CHANDRA RUHIDAS versus CHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 31-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DIPAK CHANDRA RUHIDAS 
v. 
CHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR 
JULY 3 I, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act,1951: S.86(1), Explanation; and ss. 
98(a) and 116A-Order passed u/s. 86(1) dismissing an Election Petition -
C Allegations contained in the Election Petition found vague and lacked material 
particulars-Held, by reason of the Explanation, a legal fiction has been 
created in terms whereof an order passed under sub-section (1) ofS.86 would 
be an order under clause( a) of S. 98-An appeal u/s. 116A lies against a final 
order-An order passed under sub-section(J) of S.86 is also final-Special 
D leave petition filed against the said order is not maintainable-Since the special 
leave petition has been filed beyond the period of 30 days of the order, i.e. 
beyond the period of limitation for filing an appeal, and no application for 
conodonation of delay has been filed, the special leave petition cannot be 
treated as an appeal-The leave granted is revoked and the special leave 
petition is dismissed as not maintainable-Interpretation of Statutes-Legal 
E fiction-Limitation for filing appeal. 
Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001] 8 SCC 233; S. Sundaram 
v. V.R. Pattabhiraman; AIR (1985) SC 582 and Bhavnagar University , .. 
Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111, relied on. 
F 
M Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of 
India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and Anr.;(1994) 2 SCC 323; Indian Oil 
Corporation Limitedv. Chief Inspector of Factories & Ors. Etc., (1998) 5 SCC 
738; Voltas Limited, Bombay v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 
498; Harish Tandon v. Addi. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors., 
G (1995) 1 SCC 537 and G. Viswanathan etc. v. Hon'ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu 
Legislative Assembly, Madras and Anr., (199612SCC353, referred to. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-0rder passed uls.86(1) of 
Representation of the People Act-Special leave petition against-Held, against 
the said order an appeal lies u/s.l 16A-The special leave petition is not 
H maintainable. 
72 
D.C. RUHIDAS v. C.K. SARKAR 
73 
Words and Phrases: 
'Trial'-Meaning of-Held, it is not necessary that the trial must be a 
full dressed or a jury trial which concludes only after taking evidence of the 
parties in support of their respective cases. 
Black's Law Dictionary (p.1248), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8448 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2002 of the Gauhati High 
Court at Assam in Misc. Case No. 28/200 l in E.P. No. 17 of 200 I. 
Shakil Ahmed Syed and Syed Ahmed Kashif for the Appellant 
Vijay Hansaria, P.I. Jose and Jayesh K.U., for the Respondent 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The question as to interpretation of Section l l 6A of the Representation 
of the People Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") falls for consideration 
in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.07.2002 
passed in Misc. Case No. 28/0 l in Election Petition N_o. 17 /200 l whereby 
A 
B 
c 
D 
'· 
and whereunder the Election Petition filed by the appellant herein was1 E 
dismissed. 
The last general election for Assam Assembly was held in May 2001. 
Abhayapuri South Legislative Assembly Constituency is a reserved 
constituency. The respondent herein filed his nomination for contesting election 
from the said con:;tituency. On the date of scrutiny of nominations, an objection F 
was made that th,~ respondent was not a member of the Scheduled Caste and,! 
therefore, his nomination was liable to be rejected. However, the Returning 
Officer overrulec: this objection. The respondent having received majority of 
valid votes in the election was declared a member of the Legislative Assembly 
from Abhayapuri South (35) Legislative assembly Constituency. The appellant G 
herein who was .m elector of the aforesaid Assembly filed Election Petition 
No. 17 of 200 l before the Gauhati High Court challenging the election of the 
respondent on the~ ground that his nomination was improperly accepted. After 
the notices were served upon the respondents in the Election Petition, the 
returned candidate filed an application for dismissal of the Election Petition, 
inter alia, on the ground that the allegations contained in the Election Petition H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A are vague and lacked material particulars and the Election Petition need not 
to go
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.