MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU versus PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 21-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 23 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU
v.
PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9466-9468 of 2016)
MARCH 21, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss. 83 and 100(1)(a)
and (d)(i), 101 and 125A(i) – Appellant challenged the election of
respondent no.1 by filing election petition before the High Court
alleging that respondent no.1 had grossly violated several
instructions issued by the Election Commission and also the
provisions of the Representation of People Act – Respondent no.1,
in turn, filed two applications and sought to strike out paragraphs
2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition u/Or. VI, r.16 and to dismiss the
election petition in limine u/Or. VII, r.11, both of which were allowed
by the High Court – Propriety of – On appeal, held: Not proper –
The approach of the High Court in considering the two applications
was manifestly erroneous – It had ventured into the area of analysis
of the matter on merit – That was a prohibited area at that stage –
High Court misdirected itself in concluding that the election petition
did not disclose any cause of action with or without paragraphs 2
& 9 to 11 of election petition – There was discernible pleading as to
what objections were taken before the Returning officer and as to
why he was in error in not rejecting the nomination of respondent
no.1 – The said paragraphs plainly disclosed the facts, which  were
material facts for adjudicating the grounds for declaring the election
of respondent no.1 as being void, because of improper acceptance
of his nomination form by the Returning officer – Averments made
in the concerned paragraphs of the election petition were not
frivolous and vexatious – The election petition would have to be
examined as a whole without subtracting any portion thereform –
Not possible to take a view that the same did not disclose any cause
of action – Thus, applications filed by the respondent No.1 in the
subject election petition rejected – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
Or. VI, r.17 and Or. VII, r.11 – Election Laws.
[2018] 9  S.C.R. 164
                                                  164
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that the election petition will
have to be read as a whole and cannot be dissected sentence-
wise or paragraph-wise to rule that the same does not disclose a
cause of action. Cause of action embodies a bundle of facts which
may be necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in order to get a
relief from the Court.  The reliefs claimed by the appellant are
founded on grounds inter alia ascribable to Section 100(1)(d)(i)
of the Representation of People Act, 1951.  Further relief has
been claimed to declare the appellant as having been elected
under Section 101 of the 1951 Act. The cause of action for filing
the election petition, therefore, was perceptibly in reference to
the material facts depicting that the nomination form of respondent
No.1 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. [Para
21] [187-D-E]
2. The High Court misdirected itself in concluding that the
election petition did not disclose any cause of action with or
without paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition. Indeed,
the pleadings of the election petition should be precise and clear
containing all the necessary details and particulars as required
by law. ‘Material facts’ would mean all the basic facts constituting
the ingredients of the grounds stated in the election petition in
the context of relief to declare the election to be void. It is well
established that in an election petition, whether a particular fact
is material or not and as such required to be pleaded, is a question
which depends on the nature of the grounds relied upon and the
special circumstances of the case. [Para 22] [187-G-H; 188-A-B]
3. The averments in the concerned paragraphs of the
election petition, by no standard can be said to be frivolous and
vexatious as such. The High Court committed manifest error in
entering into the tenability of the facts and grounds urged in
support thereof by the appellant on merit, as is evident from the
cogitation in paragraphs 16 to 22 of the impugned judgment. [Para
29] [195-C-D]
4. The High Court has opined that the contents of
paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition did not furnish
“any” material facts but were only in the nature of fulminating
MADIRAJU VENKAT

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