LexSATYA NARAIN. versus DHUJA RAM AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
20
SATYA NARAIN.
v.
DHUJA RAM AND OTHERS
December 21, 1973.
(P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DWIVEDI .Alm P. K •. GoSWAM!; JJ.]
Represen1ation of the People Act, (43 o/1951) Ss. 81 (3) and 86 (l}-Whe1!1er
nTandatory or directory-Non-fding of requisite nun:ber of copies within period of
limitation-Effect of.
·
'
The first part of s. 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. provides
that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there
are respondents mentioned in the petition, and s. 86 (l) provides that the High
Court shall dismiss· an election petition which does not comply with the provisions
~s.8L
I
.
The appellant filed an eJection petition challenging-the!respondent"s election to
the State Legislative Assembly, but did not file the requisite Dumber of spare copies
\\-1thin the period of limitation.
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-compliance with
· the mandatory requiremeot of s. 81 (3).
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD:
(Per P. Jaganmohan Reddy and P. K. Goswami, JJ.) Whether a particular
provision in a statute is mandatory or directory has to be construed from the
sckeme and object of the provisions. [2SH]
The right to cba11·!1ge an election is collrerred under the Representation of the
People Act. whic!:.. .lS made in conformity with the provisions of Art. 329 (b) of the
Constitution. It is a special right conferred under a self-contained special Jaw and
the Court will have to seek answers to the questions raised within the four corners
of the Act. The power of the court are circumscribed by the provisions. It is
not a common Jaw right and an election petition caimot be equated with a plaint
in a civil suit.; Since the principal object of the Act is purity of elections, when an
election is challenged under the Act, expeditious trial of the dispute ls sought to
be enforced by the Legislature making all safeguards against delay in getting rid
of any ta.int in the result of the election. But the very object of expeditious trial
will be defeated if the .presentation of the election petition should be treated casually
and lightly, pennitting all kinds of devices to delay the trial The purpose of en ..
cla!ing the copies of the election petition for all the respondents is to enable quick
d~patch of the notice with the contents of the allegations for service on the rcspon ..
dents. If there is any halt or arrest in the progress of the case, the object of the Act
will be completely frustrated. Therefore, the fust part of section 81 (3) is a
peremptory provision and total non-compliance with it will entail ilismissal of the
eJcction petition under s. 86. [27H; 99B--GJ
Jagat Kislwre Prasad }{arai11 Singh v. Rajindra KunUll' PoJJar. and Others. [J971j
J S.C.R. 821, Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. }.funicipa/ Board Rampur [1965]
S.C.R. 1970, Montreal Street Railway Company v, Normandin, [1917] L. R. A. C.
170, Charan Lal Sahu v. Nand Kishore Bhatt and Others, [1973) 2 S.C.C. 759, Ch.
Sllhba Rao v. Member, Election Tribunal [1964] 6 S.C.R. 213 and Dr. Anup Sing/1
v. Abdul Ghant [1965] 1 $.C.R. 38, referred to,
Per Dwivedi J: The election petition is liable to be ·dismissed in view
ot the decision of this Court in Jagar JGshore Prasatj Narain Singh v. R.ajindra KunUJr
Poddar and others, [1971] l S.C.R. 821. But this makes s. 86 (I) a tyrannical
master giving primacy to proct;du~e over h'l.tice. But it is for Parliament to make
a just choice bctwee~ t:!te ~l mterest. m the supply of copies for expeditious
disposal and th.e sOCJal mterest m the punty of elcctton by excluding s. 81 (3) from
the purview of s. 86 (I).
.
--
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
H
SATYA NARAIN v. DHUJA RAM (Goswami, I.)
21
C!vJL APP~TE JUIUSDicrlON: C::ivil Appeal No. 419 of 1973.
From the Judgement and Order dated the 22nd December 1972 of
the Punjab .and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election Petition
No. 2 of 1972.
- ·
•
'
'.
Hardyal Hardy, V. P. Chaudhry, Jitendra Sham1a ·and Sharma
Chaudhury and Rathi, for the appellant.
·
· ' ; ·
M. N. Phadke, Bakhtawar Singh, D. N. Misra, and /; B. Dada-
chanji, for respondent No. J.
The Judgment of P: JAGANMOHAN REDDY and P. K .. GoswM1i.
JJ. was delivered by Goswami, J. S. N .. Dwivedi, J. gave a separate
Opinion.
·
·
·
·.
GoswAMJ, J. This appeal under section 116A of the Representation
of the· people Act, 1951 (briefly the Act• is direExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.