LexSHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA versus SHRI CHARANDAS MAHANT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 6 S.C.R. 356 SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA v. SHRI CHARANDAS MAHANT & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4847 of 2012) JULY 03, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Representation of People Act, 1951 - Election petition - Declaration sought. by the defeated candidate that the C nomination papers filed by the remaining candidates was improperly and illegally accepted - Affidavit not submitted in the proper format, without any averment whether there were any dues outstanding against the candidate towards any financial institution or the government - Petition dismissed D by the High Court on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action - On appeal, held: Any departure from the prescribed format for disclosure of information about the dues, if any, payable to the financial institutions or the government will not be of much significance, especially when E the declaration made by the returned candidate in his affidavit clearly stated that no such dues were recoverable from the deponent - Thus, the departure from the format not of a substantial character on which the nomination papers of the returned candidate could be lawfully rejected by the returning F officer- However, defeated candidate was require,d to not only allege material facts relevant to such improper acceptance, but further assert that the election of the returrJed candidate had been materially affected by such acceptance - There was no such assertion in the petition - Mere imprqper acceptance assuming that any such improper acceptanci9 was supported G by assertion of material facts by the defeated candidate, would not disclose a cause of action to tall for trial of the election petition on merit unless the same is alleged to have materially affected the result of the returned candidate - Thus, the order passed by the High Court upheld. H 356 SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA v. CHARANDAS 357 MAHANT & ORS. Appellant-defeated candidate filed an election petition A before the High Court seeking a declaration to the effect that the nomination papers filed by the candidates who contested the election had been improperly and illegally accepted. The appellant contended that the nomination papers filed by respondents were incomplete for want of B a proper affidavit required to be filed in terms of the orders passed by this Court in *Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. and the instructions issued by the Election Commission requiring the candidates to file such affidavits along with their nomination papers, c containing any averment whether there were any dues outstanding against the candidate towards any financial institution or the government. Respondent no. 1-returned candidate filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of 0 People Act, 1951 alleging that the petition did not disclose any cause of action nor were the provisions of Sections 81 and 82 of the Act complied with. The High Court allowed the application and dismissed the election petition on the ground that the same did not make a concise statement of the material facts on which the appellant relied and thus, failed to disclose a cause of action. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E F HELD: 1.1 The directions issued by this Court in *Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr., and those issued by the Election Commission make the filing of an affidavit an essential part of the nomination papers, so that absence of an affidavit may G itself render a nomination paper non-est in the eye of law. But where an affidavit has been filed by the candidate and what is pointed out is only a defect in the format of the affidavit or the like, the question of acceptance or rejection of the paper shall have to be viewed in the light of ~ub-section (4) to Section 36 of the Representation of H 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R. A People Act, 1951 which states that the returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. Even the instructions issued to the Returning Officers in the Hand Book published by the Election Commission point B out that a nomination paper shall not be rejected unless the defect is of a substantial character. Thus, it is evident that the form of the nomination papers is not considered
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.