LexRAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. ETC versus SMT. USHA RANI & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ii
c
D
E
F
G
H
22
RAJ.ENDRA SINGH & ORS. ETC.
v.
SMT. USHA RANI & ORS. ETC.
February 27, 1984
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A •. VARADARAJAN AND
'
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ,]
Representaiion,ofthe People Act 1951, ~ections 81(3) and 86.
E{ection Petition-Sen'ice of true o"nd exact copy of election petition on res-
pondents-Duty of election petitioner-Consequences of failure _of-Dismissal in
limini of election petition .
•
Amendment of election petitioll-W!tether pern1issible.
,
.
Tlie respondent fi1e,d an Election Petition for setting asipc the election of
the appellant. ta the State Legislative Assembly. The appellan_t filed a petition
for rejection of the said ·Election Petition in lirnine under Sectio.n 86 of the
Representcltion of the People Act1 1951 on the_ ground that the copy of tiie
petition' served o~ him was neither attested to be a true copy nor a correct copy
of the original petition, as·conte"n1plated by the provisions conla-ined in section
. 81(3). The case of the respondent-election. peti_tidner·was· that two sets of copies
were filed, one set being correct as require.d . by the Act and the other set inc01 •
rect containini vital om.issions and mistakes, the appellant having got a correct
copy as r~quired by section 81(3) there was compliance with the requirement of
. the sectjon.
The High Collrt held that as. the respondent had filed correct coPies, the
proVisioris of section 81 (3) \Vere not violated and it was for the appellant to have·
chosen the cofrect copy fron1 the two sets and invoked the doCtrine of benefit
of-doubt "in order to cure the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of
section 81(3), and rejected the applii;ation to dismiss the Election Petition.
Jn the connected appeals, the lsJ Re~ponderrt had filed separate Election
Petitions fcir setting aside the election of the appellants to the .Rajya Sabha.
When the said petitions came up before the High Court for hearing an applica-
ti~n was made by the respondent. for amendment of the Original petition by
insertion of page 17 which was aliowed. The 'appellants filed .petitions before
the Election judge for rejecting the Election Petitiori on th~ ground that no
amendment could be allo;wed ·which \\'ould have. the effect of defeating or
bypassing th'e provisions ~f section 81(3). of .the Act, and that the original petition
served on the appellants did not contain page 17 and hence was not the ·cdrrect
and exact copy of the election petition.
The High Court rejected the application to dismiss the Election P~tition.
. . '
.
.,
Allowing the Appeals.
r.
,.
-1
AAJBNDM SiNGH v. OSHA R.\Ni
23
HELD; t. The mandate contained in section 81(3) is clear and specific and
A'
requires that every copy of the.election petition must be a true and· exact copy of
the petition. The consequences of this mandatory provison ~annot- be got over
by praying for an amendment of t~e election petition be~use that ':ould defeat
the very object and purpose of sect10n 81(3), [28 F, 29 BJ
Jn the instant cases,. the judgment of the High Court are· set aside, and the
election petitions dismissed ,in Ii mine 1:1nder s_ection 8<? of the Act.
(30 DJ
Sharif-ud-Din v, Abdul Gani Lone, [1980] 1 SCR1177; referred to,
2, Section 81 (3) an~,86 of the A1>t do not con~mplate the ·filing of incor-
rect coPies and if an election petitioner disregards the mandate contained in
B
~ection 81(3).by filing incorrect copies, he takes the risk of the petition being
C
dismissed in limine under section-86. It is no part of the duty of the resp_ondent
to wade thfough the· entire record in o+der to fiod out which is the correct copy.
If out of the copies ftled,~the respondent's copy fs fouJid to ba an incorrect one,
it amounts to n6n-compliance of the provisions' of section 81(3) which is suffi-
ciebt to entail a dismissal of the election petition at the behest of the respondent.
"
[27B;CJ
3. If an election petitioner files a number of copies, some of . which may
be correct and some -may be incorrect, it is his duty to see that the copy
~rved On the respondent is a correct one.' [27 A}
J.)
In the instant ~e, it has D.ot been proved _by the responde_p.t that correct
copies of.the Clection petition had·been filed or, that the appellant got the Cor.. . E
rect copy and not the incorrect one, in the face of the clear and categorical
assertion by him that he did not r~ceive the correct copy. [27 FJ
4, The mandate contained in SecExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.