LexKRISHAN CHANDER versus RAM LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c D E F G KRISHAN CHANDER t. RAM LAL August 10, 1973 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. ])WIVED!, JJ.] 349 Representation of the People Act, 1951---Ss, 82(a) & (b) and 86- Directory or mandatory-/mpleading of defeated candidates against whom car~ rupt Praotices were alleged_:.Whe1her s. 82 violates article 14 of the Consritu· tion. In his election petition challenging the election of the respond•nt the appel· lant alleged that the respondent and three other defeated candidates committed vari".l-us corrupt practices within the meaning of sub-sections (1) to (7) of s. 123 of the Representation of the P:ople Act, 1951. The respondent raised a pre- liminaty objection that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisi'lns of section 82 of the Act inasn1uch as th~ defeated candi- dat~s against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made bad not been joilied as nartie" to the petition. The High Court upheld the objection and dismissed the petition. In appeal to this Court it was contended that: (i) since ihe affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the elec~ion petition merely stated, thllt th~ alle- g.."ltions contained in the relevant par'igraphs were based on information receiv- ed and had not stated what the sources of information were, that part qf the petition in which the allegations of corrupt practices were made could nnt form the basis of a triable issu"; (ii) while s 0 ction 82(a) was ma,...datory s.R2(h) was directory and as such the petition could not be dismissed: (iii) a.82(b) was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution .. Dismissing the appeal. HELD : (i) The provision for setting out the sources of information in an afftdavit was not a r·eauisite prescrib~d under r. 94- :\ of thi>: Conduct of F.lection Rules, 1961. There was nothing in the affidavit in Form 25 under this rule which required the petitioner to state the ..;curce or sources of his informati11n. When there w .. re specific rules und~r the Act no other rules were applicable. If the petition and the affidavit conformed to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, it could not be said that beocause the source of inform"-tion had not been aiven, the alleeations made in the petition had to be ignored. [353E-FJ · Smt. Sahodr"bai R,oi v. Ram Sineh Aha..,., & Ors. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1079; Amulva Chandra Bhadµri v. Satish Chandra Giri & Ors. A.I.R. 1932 Cal. ?<5 and Wasudeoraoji v. 4. D. Mani A.I.R. 195! Nag .. 26, held in- applicable. (ii) Section 82(2) en101ns that, anart from the returned candiciate whose election was challeng .. d, any other candidat"' agains+ whom any allegatirns of C01TUpt practices were made sh0u'd be joined a" partif'<: to the petiti<'n Secti'ln 86 rr::l<I 'with s 82 makes b....,th els. (a) and 'b) of s 82 manda•orv and non· comolian~ wiih these requirements renders the petition to be dismissed. In view of these orovisions, it ·..vas incumb0 nt U1')()f1 th"' High Court where the allr.gation was that the Tf'Ouirem .. nts of s. 8" wer~ not complied with, to d"ter- min~ that is~ue as a preliminarv i-:sue. [353A-Dl Charan Lal Sohu v. Nandki.<hore Bhatt & Ors, C .. \. No. 2411 of 197Z dated August 1, 1973, ref.orred to. . Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal & Ors. A.I.R. 1964 S. C. 1366, held inappli- cable, (iii) An e1ection pp;tition cannot b .. sDlit uo in such a manner as bl main- tain it in reQnPct of a11"'.e:ations of corrunt nractic"s nnlv a.e:ainst some Pf'"-""DS and ·not against other persons who were r~quired to be made necessary parties. ;350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A penon who was not a:party and~against ·whom ·corrupt practices had been · A proved at the trial, natural justice required that he shou!d also be afforded an opportunity to contest that finding. Ar:icle 14 had· no apphcation becaus! th!) object of s. 8Z w.S one and indivisible and a person coming to the coun had to come with clean hands a.ad noc.· attempt to prevent a lull and complete ~nquiry or thwart fair trial by picking and ch_oosing the parties to the peti· llon. [357C-I?] .. · . · . ClVlL APPE!-LATE JuiusmcTioN : Civil Appeal. No .. 2384 of 8 1972. . : Appeal by special leave under section ll 6A of the Representa- tion of Peoples Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated the 2nd .Augu't 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election Petition No. 4 of 1972. Appellant appeared in· person. D. N. Mukherje
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.