PATEL AHMED MOHAMMAD versus BALWANT SINGH RAJPUT & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
PATEL AHMED MOHAMMAD
v.
BALWANT SINGH RAJPUT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10005-10007 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.86(1) r/w. ss.81(3),
83(1)(C) and 83(2) – Applications for dismissal of election petition
– Respondent no.1 filed election petition challenging the election
of the appellant to the Council of States – Appellant filed three
applications for dismissal of the election petition – First application-
election application no.2 was for dismissal of election petition on
ground of non-removal of office objections raised by the office/
registry of the High Court – Second application-election application
no.3 urged dismissal of election petition u/s.86(1) r/w. ss.81(3),
83(1)(C) & 83(2) of the Act and under the provisions of the CPC
and also under the High Court Rules as election petition served to
appellant was not a ‘true copy’ – Third application-election
application no.6 was for dismissal of election petition u/Or.VII,
r.11(a) and (d) of CPC for non-disclosure of the cause of action –
All three applications were rejected by the High Court – On appeal,
held: In case of election application no.2, it is evident from the
High Court Rules that the election petition is required to be placed
for orders before the Court by the office only after removal of office
objections as per r.285 and in the instant case, the record showed
that the matter was placed before the Court u/r.285 – Thus, the
High Court was right in rejecting the election application no.2 – In
case of election application no.3, High Court committed error in
noting that appellant did not file the original copy of the election
petition – In that, appellant had not only submitted a photocopy of
the election petition, but also gave an undertaking to produce the
original on the next date of hearing and he did produce and handed
over to the High Court – Thus, decision of the High Court on
election application no.3 set aside – Application No.3 and the parties
relegated before the High Court for de novo consideration of the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 6
6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
said application – Insofar as election application no.6 is concerned,
said application disposed of with liberty to the appellant to challenge
the selfsame decision of the said application afresh in event the
remanded election application no.3 is rejected – Gujarat High Court
Rules, 1993 – rr.282, 283, 284 and 285 – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – Or.XIX r.3, Or. VII r.11(a) & (d).
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. In  the  First  application  i.e.  Election  Application
No. 2 of 2017, the High Court, in  substance, opined that the
averments in the said application preferred by the appellant were
vague and unsubstantiated. On a bare perusal of the Gujarat High
Court Rules,1993 it is evident that the election petition is
required to be placed for orders before the Court by the office
only after removal of office objections as per Rule 285. If the
office objections are pending and not cured within the prescribed
period, the office is obliged to list the matter before the Court
for appropriate orders under Rule 284. For that reason, the High
Court opined that in the absence of any positive statement in the
application filed by the election petitioner and as the record would
show that the matter was placed by the office before the Court
under Rule 285, it must follow that the grievance made in the
application under consideration was based on mere conjectures
and surmises and cannot be the basis to dismiss the election
petition at the threshold, as prayed. The view taken by the High
Court was right and as a result, the order rejecting the application
under consideration, being Election Application No.2 of 2017,
deserves to be upheld. [Paras 6, 12][11-D; 17-E-H]
2.1 Reverting to the second application filed by the
appellant, being Election Application No.3 of 2017, the High Court
noted that the appellant did not file the original copy of the election
petition served on him, but produced only a photocopy of the
allegedly served copy of the election petition along with the
application filed for that purpose, bearing Election Application
No.3. The High Court noted that the only grievance of the
appellant was that the copy of the election petition served on him
did not contain the words: “True Copy”. [Paras

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