9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing the election petition. 2. Non-impleadment of all contesting candidates. 3. Non-compliance with the requirement of providing a true copy of the affidavit with the election petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation Period for Filing the Election Petition: The respondent argued that the election petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court upheld this finding, confirming that the petition was filed within the limitation period. 2. Non-Impleadment of All Contesting Candidates: The respondent contended that the election petition did not comply with Section 82 of the Act, as one of the contesting candidates, Abul Khayer, was not correctly impleaded. Instead, someone named Abdul Khyer was listed as Respondent No.11. The High Court dismissed this claim, determining that the petitioner intended to implead Abul Khayer and that the incorrect spelling was a mere typographical error. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the address and context indicated that Abul Khayer was indeed the intended respondent, thus fulfilling the requirement of Section 82. 3. Non-Compliance with the Requirement of Providing a True Copy of the Affidavit: The core issue was whether the election petition should be dismissed under Section 86(1) due to the non-compliance with Section 81(3), which mandates that the copies of the petition served to the respondents must be true copies of the original. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the affidavit copy served to Respondent No.1 lacked the Oath Commissioner's endorsement. The Supreme Court analyzed several precedents, including the cases of Dr. Shipra vs. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, Harcharan Singh Josh vs. Hari Kishan, and T.M. Jacob vs. C. Poulose. The Court emphasized the principle of substantial compliance, stating that minor defects that do not mislead the respondent or cause material prejudice do not warrant dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court concluded that the absence of the Oath Commissioner's stamp and endorsement in the true copy of the affidavit was not a material defect. The Court held that the true copy served to the respondent adequately conveyed the substance of the allegations and did not mislead the respondent. Therefore, the petition should not have been dismissed on this ground. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment dismissing the election petition under Section 86(1) for non-compliance with Section 81(3). The findings of the High Court regarding the limitation period and the non-impleadment of Abul Khayer were upheld. The case was remanded for trial on merits, emphasizing that technicalities should not defeat the substantive justice in election matters. Costs of the proceedings were to be borne by Respondent No.1.
|
