P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS versus M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 27-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 56 
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS 
v. 
M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10262 of 2010) 
APRIL 27, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 83(1) proviso 
ands. 81 rlw ss. 100, 101 and 123- Election petition alleging 
C corrupt practice - Maintainability of - In absence of affidavit 
in Form 25 as required under s. 83(1) rlw. r. 94A of Conduct 
of Election Rules - Held: In the absence of proper verification 
as contemplated in s. 83, cause of action cannot be said to 
be complete - Thus the petition is not maintainable - In a 
o case where proviso to s. 83(1) was attracted, a single affidavit 
would not be sufficient and two affidavits would be required 
one under Or. VI r. 15(4) CPC and the other in Form 25 -
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - r. 94A - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI r. 15 (4). 
E 
The question for consideration in the present appeal 
was whether an election petition u/s. 81 r/w ss. 100, 101 
and 123 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not 
maintainable for want of complete cause of action in 
absence of the requisite affidavit in Form 25 as required 
F 
under proviso to s. 83(1) of the Act r/w r. 94A of the 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. As is evident from Section 83 of 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, the election 
petitioner is required to set forth full particulars of any 
corrupt practice that he alleges and the names of the 
parties involved therein and it further provides that the 
H 
56 
PA. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS. 
57 
same is to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the A 
manner laid down in CPC for the verification of 
proceedings. The proviso makes it clear that where the 
election petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the 
petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the 
prescribed form in support of the allegation of such B 
corrupt practice and the particulars thereof and the 
schedule or annexures to the petition shall also be signed 
by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the 
petition. In other words, when corrupt practices are 
alleged in an election petition, the source of such c 
allegations has to be disclosed and the same has to be 
supported by an affidavit in support thereof. [Para 23] [71-
F-H; 72-A] 
2. In the present case, although allegations as to 
corrupt practices alleged to have been employed by the D 
respondent had been mentioned in the body of the 
petition, the petition itself had not been verified in the 
manner specified in Or. VI r. 15 CPC. Sub-Section (4) of 
Section 123 of the Act defines "corrupt practice" and the 
publication of various statements against the respondent E 
which were not supported by affidavit, could not, 
therefore, have been taken into consideration by the High 
Court while considering the election petition. In the 
absence of proper verification, the election petition was 
incomplete as it did not contain a complete cause of F 
action. [Para 24] [72-8-D] 
3. It is not correct to say that it could not have been 
the intention of the legislature that two affidavits would 
be required, one under Or. VI r. 15(4) CPC and the other G 
in Form 25. It is also not correct to say that even in a case 
where the proviso to Section 83(1) was attracted, a single 
affidavit would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements 
of both the provisions. Filing of two affidavits in respect 
of the self-same matter, would not render one of them H 
redundant. rPara 25) [72-F-H; 73-A] 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
4. In the absence of proper verification, as 
contemplated in Section 83, it C_fillnot be said that the 
cause of action was complete. The consequences of 
Section 86 of the Act come into play immediately in view 
of Sub-Section (1) which relates to trial of election 
B petitions and provides that the High Court shall dismiss 
the election petition which does not comply with the 
provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of 
the Act. Although, Section 83 has not been mentioned in 
Sub-Section (1) of Section 86, in the absence of proper 
c verification, it must be held that the provisions of Section 
81 had also not been fulfilled and the cause of action for 
the Election Petition remained incomplete. The Petitioner 
had the opportunity of curing the defect, but it chose not 
to do so. [Para 26] [73-D-F] 
D 
Hardwari Lal vs. Kanwa/ Singh

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