SUDARSHA AVASTHI versus SHIV PAL SINGH

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 116 
SUDARSHA AVASTHI 
v. 
SHIV PAL SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 6807 of 2005) 
MAY 16, 2008 
[A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951 - ss.82, 83, 123 -
Election petition - Not disclosing any cause of action and ma-
c terial facts and particulars - Held: Not maintainable. 
The appellant filed election petition for declaration 
that election of respondent no.1 to the legislative council 
was void as the ground of corrupt practices on part of 
respondent no.1 in giving bribe to his brother, respon-
D dent no.2 and 3 inducing them to contest as candidate in 
election and to respondent no.4 to withdraw from the con-
test. 
On the basis of pleadings, Single Judge concluded 
that there was no material facts disclosing the cause of 
E action and consequently, dismissed the election petition. 
Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per s.83 of the Representation of People 
• 
F Act, it is the duty of the person who files the election peti-
tion and levels the allegation of corrupt practice to dis-
close the material facts on which he relies and that should 
set forth the full particulars of a corrupt practice that the 
petitioner alleges including the full statement as far as 
G possible disclosing the names of the parties alleged to 
have committed such corrupt practice and the date and 
place of commission of each such practice and the same 
shall be filed by the petitioner and verified in the manner 
as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from 
H 
116 
SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL 
117 
SINGH 
this, he has to file an affidavit in prescribed form in sup-
A 
port of the allegation of such corrupt practice and he 
should disclose the particulars thereof. If he wants to rely 
on any document then it should be annexed to the peti-
tion signed by the petitioner and verified in the same man-
ner as the petition. (Para 5] (121-G & H; 122-A,B & C] 
B 
2. Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot 
...;. 
be treated lightly or in fanciful manner nor is it given to a 
person who uses this as a handle for vexatious purpose. 
The allegations made in the petition as disclosed in the 
election petition appear to be totally a cock and bull story c 
that a brother would give a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the of-
fice of the Returning Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner 
for appearing in the election or contesting the election or 
a sum of Rs.30,000/- to another candidate for withdraw-
ing in full public view of all and sundry. On the face of it, it D 
appears to be unbelievable and these allegations have 
been made in order to make a ground for some how or 
the other to put pressure on the respondent. Single Judge 
after review of the allegations contained therein has rightly 
concluded that these allegations are not precise allega-
E 
tions so as to show that these are serious allegations to 
be tried in the election petition. Single Judge has gone 
through all these allegations and it also appears to be 
most unbelievable and impracticable sequence of events. 
The Single Judge has correctly appreciated that this case 
F 
lacks in particularity any allegation of bribery as contained 
in s.123 read with s.83 of the Act. Material particulars dis-
closed are not sufficient to be gone into for trial. [Paras 7, 
9] [127-G,H; 128-A,B,C,D & .E] 
Roop Lal Sathi v. Machhattar Singh AIR 1982 SC 1559; G 
FA.Sapa & Ors. v. Singora & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375; TM.Jacob 
~· 
v. C.Poulose & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 274; Sardar Harcharan 
Singh Brar v.Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 196; 
Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511 - re-
ferred to. 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6807 
of 2005 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2005 of 
the High Court Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, 
Lucknow in Election Petition No. 3 of 2002 
B 
WITH 
C.A. No. 1108 of 2007 
... 
Sudarsha Avasthi (Appellant-in-person) and Dinesh Kumar 
c Garg for the Appellant. 
Ardhendumauli K. Prasad, TN. Singh, VK. Singh, Taruna 
A. Prasad and Kishan Datta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Both these appeals involve common . 
question of fact and law, therefore, they are disposed of by this 
-' 
common order. For convenient disposal of both the case, the 
facts given in C.A.No.6807 of 2005 (Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv 
Pal Singh) are taken into considera

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