TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'.) The petition arises out of an election to the Siddipets Assembly Constituency in Andhra Pradesh which took place on January 5, 1983. The petitioner was declared elected to the said Assembly. The respondent filed an election petition in the High Court alleging certain corrupt practices. The short point for consideration before us is as to whether or not the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under s. 86 of the Act as the copies of the documents and schedules, which formed an integral part of the election petition, were not supplied to the petitioner which amounted to a clear breach of the mandatory provisions contained in s. 81 (3) of the Act. The High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are respondents, (b) that every such copy should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. It is not disputed in this case that both these conditions were fully satisfied. Section 83 of the Act contains four requirements, viz., (a) that the election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts relied upon by the petitioner, (b) that the petitioner should set forth the full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged, (c) that the petition should be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and where a corrupt practice is alleged the petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-s. (2) of s. 83. The first provides that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and that every such copy shall be an authenticated true copy. The words used here are only the election petition. There is no mention of any document accompanying the election petition.........Assistance is however taken from the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 83 which provides that any schedule or any annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. It is contended that since the pamphlet was an annexure to the petition it was not only necessary to sign and verify it, but that it should have been treated as a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote the object of the Act. As extracted above, this Court clearly held that if the arguments of the appellant (in that case) were to be accepted, it would be stretching and straining the language of ss. 81 and 82 and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by this Court which has decided the issue once for all. The learned counsel relied on a latter decision of this Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande(1) where a Division Bench while considering a similar question made the following observations: The Preliminary issue and the appeal turn on a short point of construction. The question that arises is whether the words copies thereof in sub-section (3) of Section 81 comprehend the election petition proper or do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
