MANGANI LAL MANDAL versus BISHNU DEO BHANDARI

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 01-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 527 
MANGANI LAL MANDAL 
v. 
BISHNU DEO BHANDARI 
(Civil Appeal No. 10728 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951: 
s. 100(1 )(d)(iv) - Election petition challenging the election 
A 
B 
c 
of returned candidate - On the ground of non-compliance of 
provisions of the Constitution or the Act - Held: A mere non-
compliance or breach of the Constitution or the statutory 
provisions by itself, does not result in invalidating the election 
0 
of a returned candidate u/s 100(1)(d)(iv) - For the election 
petitioner to succeed on such ground, he has not only to plead 
and prove the ground but also that the result of the election 
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been 
materially affected ~ In the entire election petition thf?re is no 
E 
pleading at all that suppression of the information by the 
returned candidate in the affidavit filed along with the 
nomination papers With regard to his first wife and dependent 
children from her and non-disclosure of their assets and 
liabilities has materially affected the result of the election 
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate - There is no 
issue framed in this regard nor is there any evidence let in 
F 
by the election petitioner - High Courl has a/so not formed 
any opinion on this aspect - Judgment of High Courl is gravely 
flawed and legally unsustainable and, as such, is set aside -
Election petition dismissed - Costs. 
G 
The respondent, a voter, filed an election petition 
challenging the election of the returned candidate to the 
Lok Sabha on the ground that he suppressed the facts 
527 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 1 S.C.R. 
A in the affidavit filed along with his nomination papers, that 
he had two wives and the dependant children from 
marriage with his first wife and also did not disclose the 
assets and liabilities of his first wife and the dependent 
children born out of that wedlock. The High Court 
B allowed the election petition and set aide the election of 
the returned candidate holding it as void u/s 100(1)(d)(iv) 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Aggrieved, 
the returned candidate filed the appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A reading of s.100(1)(d)(iv) with s.83 of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 leaves no manner 
of doubt that where a returned candidate is alleged to be 
guilty of non-compliance of the provisions of the 
D Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made 
thereunder and his election is sought to be declared void 
on such ground, it is essential for the election petitioner 
to aver by pleading material facts and prove that the result 
of the election insofar as it concerned the returned 
E candidate has been materially affected by such breach 
or non-observance. A mere non-compliance or breach 
of the Constitution or the statutory provisions by itself, 
does not result in invalidating the election of a returned 
candidate u/s 100(1)(d)(iv). [para 9) [532-E-G; 533-A-B] 
F 
Jabar Singh Vs. Genda Lal (1964) 6 SCR 54; L.R. 
Shivaramagowda and Others Vs. 
T. M. Chandrashekhar 
(dead) by LRs. and Others. 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 241 = 
1999 (1) SCC 666 and Uma Bal/av Rath (Smt.) Vs. 
Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt) and others 1999 (1) SCR 895 = 
G 1999 (3) SCC 357 - relied on. 
1.2 The impugned judgment does not reflect any 
consideration on the most vital aspect as to whether the 
non-disclosure of the information concerning the 
H appellant's first wife and the dependent children born out 
MANGAN! LAL MANDAL v. BISHNU DEO BHANDARI 529 
of that wedlock and their assets and liabilities has 
A 
materially affected the result of the election insofar as it 
concerned the returned candidate. As a matter of fact, 
in the entire election petition there is no pleading at all in 
this regard nor is there any issue framed nor any 
evidence let in by the election petitioner. The High Court B 
has also not formed any opinion on this aspect. The 
impugned judgment of the High Court is gravely flawed 
and legally unsustainable and, as such, is set aside. As 
a matter of law, the election petition deserved dismissal 
at threshold yet it went into the whole trial consuming c 
Court's precious time and putting the returned candidate 
to unnecessary trouble and inconvenience. The election 
petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,0001 
-. [para 10-11] [533-F-H; 534-A-D] 
Union of

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