REGD . NO . D. L. -33001 /99 रजिस्ट्रीसं०डी० एल०-33001 /99
भारतक राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
सं.4]
नई दिल्ली, शनिवार , फरवरी 15 , 2003 /माघ 26 , 1924
No.4]
NEW DELHI , SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2003/MAGHA 26, 1924
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप- खण्ड (iii) PART II Section 3-Sub- section (iii)
केन्द्रीय अधिकारियों ( संघ राज्य क्षेत्र प्रशासनों को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किये गये आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Orders and Notifications issued by Central Authorities ( other than the Administrations of Union Territories) भारत निर्वाचन आयोग
2003 in the Civil Appeal No. 6593 of2000 arising from Elec- tion Petition No. I of 1999 .
नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2003
REPORTABLE-443/2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6593 OF 2000 आ.अ. 10.- लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 ( 1951 का 43 ) की धारा 116ग के अनुसरण में, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग 1999 की याचिका सं० 1 द्वारा उत्पन्न 2000 की सिविल अपील सं ० 6593 पर उच्चतम न्यायालय के 2 नवम्बर , 2002 के निर्णय/आदेश को 3 जनवरी, 2003 के शुद्धिपत्र के साथ इसके द्वारा प्रकाशित करता है ।
(From the Judgement and Order dated 18-8-2000 of the Assam High Court at Gauhati , in E.P. No. 1 of 1999 and C.M.C. No. 28 of2000)
(निर्णय/आदेश इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है । )
Ram Prasad Sarma
Appellant
V/s
[सं० 82/ असम-लो ०स०/( 1/1999 )/2000 ]
.Respondents
Mani Kumar Subba and Ors .
आदेश से,
घनश्याम खोहर, सचिव
[With S.L.P. (C ) ..... /2001 (CC. 8664 of2001 ] The 29th Day of October , 2002 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
PRESENT :
New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2003
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar
U.N. Bachawat, Sr. Adv . , Ms. Sumita Hazarika , U. Hazarika, Adv. for Shivaji M. Jadhav , Alok Bachawat , Ms.Anjali Doshi , Ms. Ruchi Kohli and Sushil Kr . Jain , Advs . with him for the appearing parties .
(81)
O. N. 10. In pursuance of Section 116C of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 (43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission , hereby , publishes the judgment/order dated the 2nd November, 2002 of the Supreme Court of India along with the corrigendum dated the 3rd January, 316GI/2003 [PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15 , 2003/MAGHA 26, 1924
82
JUDGEMENT
The aforesaid relevant provisions may be perused, which read as follows:-
The following Judgement of the Court was delivered:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO . 6593 OF 2000
Ram Prasad Sarma
.Appellant
Versus
.Respondents
Mani Kumar Subha & Ors .
WITH
Section 81. Presentation of Petitions ( 1 ) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in [ Sub- section ( 1 ) ] of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High by any candidate at such election or any elector [within forty five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidates or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates]
S.L.P. (CC 8664 OF 2001 )
Explanation.
Petitioner
Mani Kumar Subba
* * * * * * * Versus
Ram Prasad Sarma & Ors .
.Respondents
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J.
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by asmanycopies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by thepetitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
Section 82. Parties of the Petition-A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition-
(a) Where the petitioner , in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any ofthe returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates ; and
(b) Any other candidate against whom allegations ofanycorruptpractice are made in the petition .
Section 83, Contents of Petition ( 1 ) An election petition-
The appellant Ram Prasad Sarma and Respondent No. 1 Mani Kumar Subba , amongst others contested election , for No. 9 Tezpur Parliamentary Constituency, Assam in the election held in the year 1999 . Respondent No. 1 Mani Kumar Subba was declared elected on 7-10-1999 from the aforesaid constituency. The appellant who secured the next highest number of votes , challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 by filing an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 on the ground that large scale rigging and booth capturing had taken place at the instance of Respondent No. I who adopted and resorted to corrupt practices in the election . Hence , election of Respondent No. I was liable to be declared void . It was also prayed that the appellant may be declared as duly elected candidate from No. 9 Tezpur Constituency. Notice was issued to the respondents on the election petition.
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleged including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practiceand the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedue, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification ofpleadings .
[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corruptpractice , the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. ]
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the betition .
The Respondent.No . 1 Mani Kumar Subba on receipt of the notice , moved an application under Section 86 of the Respresentation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as the ' Act' ) praying for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold on three grounds , firstly that the election petition was filed beyond a period of45 days which is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an election petition under Section 81 ( 1 ) of the Act . The next ground was that where the election petitioner prays for a declaration in his favour or in favour of any other candidate for having been duly elected from the constituency all the contesting candidates have to be impleaded as respondents in the election petition . One Shri Abdul Khyer who had also contested the election was not impleaded as respondent instead one Abdul Khyer was impleaded as Respondent No. 11. It amounted tonon compliance of Section 82 ofthe Act. Thirdly, the true copy of the affidavit served upon the Respondent No. 1 along with copy of the election petition does contain the attestation and stampetc. of the Oath Commissioner . It violates Section 81 (3 ) ofthe Act.
83
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 15, 2003/माघ 26, 1924
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]
Section86(1) . Trial of election petitions-The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 ог Section 117. "
The appellant contested the plea of the dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 ( 1 ) of the Act . According to him there was no non compliance of any provision of the Act as alleged by Respondent No. 1. The High Court negatived the plea raised on behalf of the Respondent No. I for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of limitation and non - implement of Abdul Khayer as a respondent in the election petition . However , it was held that copy of the affidavit supplied to the Respondent No. 1 does not contain the affirmaiton by the appellant before the Commissioner of Oath or the Oath Commissioner's endorsement . On this ground it was held that there was non compliance of Sub- section (3 ) of Section 81 of the Act . Hence , the petition was dismissed under Section 86 ( 1 ) of the Act .
returned candidate , a respondent , did not contain verification by the Notary who had attested the original affidavit filed along with the election petition. The question which arose for consideration was ".... whether copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent without the attestation portion contained in it (though contained in the original affidavit) can be considered to be a true copy"? It was held that verification by a Notary or any other prescribed authority is a vital fact which assures that the election petitioner had affirmed before the Notary that the statement containing imputation of corrupt practices was dulyand solemnly verified to be a correct statement to his knowledge or information as specified in the election petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the respondent would not be misled on that score . Such an omission in the copy supplied to the returned candidate as true copy is not a curable irregularity and concept of substantial compliance will not be applicable . The other decision relied upon is Harcharan Singh Josh (supra) . In this case one of the grounds among at others was that the affidavit supplied to the respondent was not a true copy of the affidavit since it did not contain the affirmation by the Oath Commissioner . This contention wasupheld.
The High Court followed the decisions in the cases of Dr. Shipra and Harcharan Singh Josh (supra ), while holding that the defect was not curable and the election petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground .
It may be mentioned here that Respondent No. 1 also filed S.L.P...... (CC 8664/2001 ) against the findings of theHigh Court rejecting the pleas relating to limitation and non- impleadment of all the contesting candidates . On the SLP.... (CC 8664/2001 ) no order had been passed yet . The record of SLP is before the Court for its hearing with the appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that in any event the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to support the order of dismissal of the election petition , in this appeal on the aforesaid two other grounds as well, as involved in SLP ..... (CC 8664/2001 ). We have therefore heard the learned counsel for both the parties on all the three pleas raised by Respondent No. 1 in his applicaiton for dismissal ofthe election petition under Section 86( 1 ) of the Act . We may take up first the plea relating to non- supply oftrue copy ofthe affidavit with the election petition to Respondent No. 1 on the basis ofwhich it has been held that itviolated sub - section (3 ) of Section 81 of the Act and order of dismissal of the election petition has been passed by the High Court .
At the very outset it may be indicated that there is no dispute that the original election petition bears the signatures of the Oath Commissioner before whom the affidavit was sworn by the petitioner . But in the copies supplied to Respondent No. 1 though attested to be true copy, it does not indicate about the endorsement of the Oath Commissioner on the affidavit . Therefore , the contention was that it was not the true copy of the affidavit accompanying with the election petiton .
The High Court has also referred to the decision of Three Judges Bench of this Court reported in 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 31 - T.M. Jacob versus C. Poulose and others . In this case the meaning of the word ' true copy ' was considered in reference to furnishing of such a copy of the affidavit together with copy of election petition . This Court had thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger Bench for re- consideration of the decision in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra) . The decision of the Constitution Bench in the caseofT.M. Jacob versus C. Poulose and others is reported in 1999 ( 4) SCC 274. So far the fact situation is concerned. , it may be indicated that in the end of the affidavit it contained the endorsement by the appellant that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed and verified by the Notary. Under the affirmation by the Notary, the words" Sd/- Notary" were written but name address or the stamp and seal of the Notary were missing . The Court considered the question as to whether the decision in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra ) would be applicable in the case or not . This Court held that decision in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra ) would not be applicable which was decided and confined to the fact situation as it existed in that case . In Paragraph 33 the Courtobserved thus:
Insupport of the above contention , learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 placed reliance upon decisions of this Court reported in ( 1996) 5 S.C.C. 181 - Dr. Shipra (Smt. ) Versus Shanti Lal Khoiwal , and ( 1997 ) 10 S.C.C. 294-Harcharan Singh Josh Versus Hari Kishan .
Doesthe word 'Copy ' occurring in Section 81 (3) ofthe Act mean an absolutely exact copy or does it mean a copy so true that nobody could by any possibility misunderstand it . This matter is no longer res integra . In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar In the case of Dr. Shipra (supra ) the fact position was that the true copy of the affidavit supplied to the 84
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15 , 2003 /MAGHA 26 , 1924
versus Roop Singh Rathore a Constitution Bench of this Court elaborately dealt with this question after referring to a catena of authorities . It was held that the test to determine whether a copy was true one or not was to find out whether any variation from the original was calculated to mislead a reasonable person. The Constitution Bench found as untenable the contention that since copies of the petition served on the returned candidate did not contain the signatures ofthe petitioner below the word 'petitioner' on the copies of the petitioner served on the respondent , they had ceased to be true copies of the original petition, attracting the consequences of Section 86( 1 ) of the Act . The Bench opined :
"Having regard to the provisions of Part VI of the Act, we are of the view that the word ' copy' does not mean an absolutely exact copy. It means a copy so true that nobody can by any possibility misunderstand it ."
The fact situation in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra ) is enumerated in Paragraph 16 of the judgment which reads as under:
"Thus , from the " facts " noted by Bharucha, J. , ittranspires that in Dr. Shipra case the " true copy " ofthe election petition furnished to the respondent gave an impression that the election petitioner's affidavit supporting his allegations of corrupt practice had not been duly sworn and verifiedby the election petitioner before the Notary, who also had not attested the same thereby rendering that document as " no affidavit " at all in the eye of the law . The defect found in the " true copy " of the affidavit was thus not merely the absence of the name of the Notary or his seal and stamp but a complete absence of " notarial endorsement " of the verification as well as absence of an " affirmation " or " path " by the election petitioner. It was in that context that the Bench had found in Dr. Shipra case that the returned candidate would have got the impression, on a persual of the " true copy" of the affidavit, that there was no duly sworn and verified affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice by the election petitioner . It was prescisely on account ofthis " fatal " defect that K. Ramaswamy, J. opined that " the principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in the fact situation" .
On the question of substantial compliance the Constitution Bench in T.M. Jacob's case has further observed as follows :
"The object of serving a " true copy " of an election petition and the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice on the respondent in the election petition is to enable the respondent to understand the charge against him so that he can effectively meet the same in the written statement and prepare his defence . The requirement is thus of substance and not of form ."
[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)] The expression" copy" in Section 81 (3 ) of the Act, in our opinion , means a copy which is substantially so and which does not contain any material or substantial variation of a vital nature as could possibly misiead a reasonable person to understand and meet the charges/ allegations made against him in the election petition . Indeed a copy which differs in material particulars from the original cannot be treated as a true copy of the original within the meaning ofSection 81 (3 ) of the Act and the vital defect cannot be permitted to be cured after the expiry ofthe period of limitation . "
(emphasis supplied by us ).
In the case of Anil R. Deshmukh Vrs . Onkar N. Wagh and others ( 1999) 2 S.C.C. 205, a Bench of Three Judges considered the question. The fact situation in that case as enumerated in Paragraph 3 of the Judgment is asUnder:
"When the copies of the petition , documents and the affidavit were served on the respondents , the copy of the affidavit did not bear the endorsement of attestation found on the original or the seal or stamp of the attesting officer . The appellant signed below the rubber stamp endorsement "attested as true copy ". But for the absence ofthe notarial endorsement it was a true copyof the original as it was a xerox copy . The first respondent and the tenth respondent raised objections that the election petition should be dismissed in limine as the provisions of Section 83 ( 1 ) oftheAct were not complied with. "
(emphasis supplied by us) The Court in Paragraph 17 of the judgment dealt with the matter in reference to the decision in Dr. Shipra's case and held as under:
" In the light of the rulings of the Constitution Bench referred to earlier , we have our own reservations on the correctness of the view expressed in Dr. Shipras case but it is unnecessary in the present case to dwell on the same .
We have already referred to the fact that even before arguments were heard on the preliminary objection by the High Court in this case the true copies of the affidavits had been served on the first respondent and his counsel . In the facts and circumstances of this case , we have no doubt that therewas sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 81 (3 ) read with Section 83 ( 1 ) ( c) of the Act .
85
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 15, 2003/माघ 26, 1924
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]
endorsed ' verified by me ' instead of " verified before me " . The signature of the deponent had also been obtained on at a wrong face . The verification was also not apparently in the prescibed form . It is observed that " The mistake of theOath Commissioner in verifying the affidavit cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petitioner's petition summarily " . It was further pointed out that the defect can be remedied in accordance with the principles of Code of Civil Procedure relating to Verification of pleadings accordingly even a correct affidavit could be filed later to rectify the defect.
It is thus clear that the correctness of broad proposition as laid in the case of Dr. Shipra (supra), was doubted in the case of T.M. Jacob as well as Anil R. Deshmukh's case ( supra ). The Constitution Bench in T.M. Jacob's case (supra ) has indicated the correct position . Any defect of whatever nature in the true copy supplied to the respondent would not render the peition liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act . Such defects in supply of true copies are not always incurable . The main consideration which would weigh is that the returned candidate must get a correct idea of the allegations of corrupt practices so that it may be possible to understand and meet the charges levelled against him. The true copy supplied should also reflect that the part of the petition containing the allegations of corrupt practices has been verified and sworn by the petitioner on oath. The fact that the name , stamp , seal and signature of the Notary are not indicated or missing in the true copy is not material nor the absence of stamp of attestation by the Notary. We will deal with the facts of this case in that regard a little later .
We may now consider the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Versus Roop Singh Rathore and other reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 1545 referred to in the case of T.M. Jacob (supra). The two objections mainly raised by the returned candidate were that there was non - compliance of Section 81 ( 3 ) of the Act since copy of the election potition served on the respondent was not true copy of the original filed before the Election Tribunal nor was it properly attested to be a true under the signature of the petitioner . The other ground was that there was non - compliance of Section 83 oftheAct since the affidavit in respect of corrupt practices was neither properly made nor it was in the prescribed form .The Court held as under :-
In yet another decision reported in 2001 ( 5 ) SCALE 599 Sri T.Phungzathang versus Sri Hangkhanlian and others . It has been held that the case of Harcharan Singh Josh (Supra ) does not lay the correct law . It has also been observed that an election petition accompanied by an affidavit has two parts out of which the verification part by the Oath Commissioner is not an integral part of the petition and the affidavit . If the copy furnished to the returned candidate does not contain the words as the true copy so far the attestation partby the Oath Commissioner is concerned, it would not violate the requirement of furnishing of true copy of the election petition and the affidavit thereof. This is also a decision by Three Judge Bench rendered on considering the decisions in the case of Dr. Shipra , Murarka Radhey Shyam and T.M. Jacob (supra) . It was held that in view of the two Constitution Bench decisions in the case of Harcharan Singh Josh (supra ) cannot be held as laying down the correct law . The Court followed the decision in the case of T.M. Jacob and Anil R. Deshmukh ( supra) . The fact situation of the case was also quite akin to the case in hand . The allegations of corrcorrupt practices were made. The original petition contains the affidavit with all necessary endorsement and attestation by the Oath Commissioner. But the copy supplied did not contains any such verfication or affirmation . While ascribing additional reasons in support of the decision , one of us (R. C. Lahoti , J. ) who was a member of the Bench observed thatendorsement made by the officer administering Oath to the deponent is not an integral part of the affidavit . Preparing, signing and swearing of an affidavit are act of deponent ; administering Oath and making an endorsement in proof thereof on the affidavit are acts of the officer administering the Oath . The former relates to form of an affidavit which the latter is mode and manner of swearing in an affidavit . The latter part of the provision prescribed the person recognized by the Act or the Rules as competent to administer the oath to the deponent and his endorsement is not an integral part of the affidavit.
"Having regard to the provisions of part VI of the Act.We are of view that the word " copy " does not mean an absolutely exact copy. It means a copy so true that nobody can by any possibility misunderstanding it . The test whether the copy is a true one is whether any variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person. Applying that test we have come to the conclusion that the defect complained of with regard to Election Petition No. 269 of 1962 were not such as to mislead the appellant , therefore there was no failure to comply with the last part ofsub - sec . (3 ) of Sec. 81. "
(Emphasis suppliedby us)
From the various decisions noted above , it clearly emerged out that the correctness of the decision in Dr. Shipra's case ( supra ) was doubted and it has been held by the Constitution Bench in the T.M. Jacob's case (supra) that it was confined to the facts of that case . Therefore , it cannot be said that Dr. Shipra's case lays down any proposition of law of binding nature. The two decisions of the Constitution Benches , namely , Radhey In respect of the other objection it was found that the Election Tribunal has rightly pointed out that due to the inexperience of the Oath Commissioner mistake had occurred in the verification part of the affidavit and he had [PART 11-SEC. 3 (iii) ] 86
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15 , 2003/MAGHA 26, 1924
Shyam Murarka and T.M. Jacob (supra) hold the field as well as the decision in the case of Sri T. Phugzathang (supra) . The law as laid down in the above noted decisions would the guiding precedents in deciding a question relating to a true copy of an affidavit .
may be there in the true copy without indicating that the affidavitwas verified or signed by the Oath Commissioner as in those cases the returned candidate might know that the allegations relating to corrupt practices have been varified and attested before the Oath Commissioner even thought it is not indicated in the true copy that it was signed by the Oath Commissioner. We are unable to appreciate the above submission . Mere indication of the stamp of Oath Commissioner without any indication in the true copy that the affidavit was attested before the Oath Commissioner and signed by him ( Oath Commissioner) will have no different effect from one where nothing is indicated about the stamp and verification before the Oath Commissioner because it is not necessary that mere stamp of the Oath Commissioner must lead to the inference that the affidavit was also sworn , before and signed by the Oath Commissioner in attestation therof. Therefore , such a case would be at the same footing as where nothing is indicated regarding swearing of the affidavit before the Oath Commissioner .
We may now consider the fact situation of the present case in relation to attestation of the affidavit in suport of the election petition before an Oath Commissioner . At the very outset , it may be indicated thatthe original election petition in the end bears the stamp and due attestation and signature of the Oath Commissioner .Above the stamp of the Oath Commissioner there are signatures of the petitioners above the word 'deponent'. Before that on Page 25 of the petition , a full verification ofthe affidavit has been made . Pages 25 and 26 of the petition are as under:
Page 25.
"AFFIDAVIT "
The purpose of the provision to furnish a true copy ofthe petition is not to frustrate the cause of the petitioner approaching the Court by adhering strictly to technicalities of little consequence. On the other hand the anxiety is that the respondent must have correct idea of the allegations of corrupt practices made against him with some responsibility and that he may not be misled in any. material respect by furnihsing of a copy of the affidavit which may not be a correct copy having vital variation from the original . It is true that in the matters relating to elections and election petitions , strict compliance of the legal provisions is necessary and full care is to be taken to see that rights of an elected representative are not lightly disturbed and rightly so . But an election petition is not to be thrown at the threshold on the slightest pretext of one kind or the other which may or may not have any material bearing on the factors to be strictly adhered to in such matters . It is substance not form which would matter . If it ispermitted otherwise , the returned candidate would only be in the look out microscopically for any kind oftechnical lacuna or defect to abort the undeavour of the petitioner to bring to trial the issues relatingto corrupt practices in the elections . The purpose of the law on the point cannot be to allow the returned candidate to avoid the trial of the issues of corrupt practices raised against him on the basis ofany little defect which may not result in any vital variation between the original and the true copy so as to have the effect of inisleading the returned candidate . As it is, the prevailing situation of elections and practices often said to be adopted now and then and here and there does not always give a very happy picture . Free, fair and fearless elections is idealto be achieved and not to be defeated for the sake of pretentious and frivolous technicalities .
1. That I am the instant petitioner in this csse and as such I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case for the purpose of swearing this affidavit in support of the contention ofthe corrupt practices taken recourse to by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 7 more particularly by the respondent No.1 . Congress candidate who has been declared elected
2..That the statements made in paragraph 1 of this affidavit is true to my knowledge.
Shri Bachawat learned Senior Counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that the fact situation of the present case and the case of Dr. Shipra is the same and therefore , the High Court has rightly followed the decision in the case of Dr. Shipra . We have already made our observations in this regard. In any situation the matter has to be judged in the light of the decisions of the Constitution Benches referred to above . There is no precedent on facts . It is legal proposition flowing from the Judgment which has binding effect .
3. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 , 4 , 8, 9 , 10 and 11 of the body of the petition are true to my knowledge and those made in paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 14 of this petition are true to myInformation based on records and further statements made on the body of the petition are true to my information gathered from polling agents of those Legislative Asembly Constituency segments numbering 40 in its segments whose appointment letters have furnished to the polling officers of 40 polling centres of each 1.A. Constituency /Segments .
Learned senior counsel for the repondent then submits that in the case in hand on the copy there is no stamp of the Notary , nor anything is mentioned about attestation by himnor that the affidavit was verifiedbefore the Oath Commissioner and was signed by him (Oath Commissioner) . Therfore, it would be a different case from one in which in the true copy it was indicated that the affidavit was signed by the Notary and in another case where it was not so noted but copy of stamp of Notary 87 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( iii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 15 , 2003/माघ 26, 1924
Page26
Mentioned in the body of the petition and the rest are grounds and submission before this Hon'ble Court .
And in witness whereof, I put my signature on this 20th day ofNovember 1999 at Guwahati .
Identified by Sd/-
Sd/- (Ram Prasad Sarmah) Deponent
(SunBarman)
(Advocate'sClerk)
been impleaded. The submission is that all the candidates who contested the election have thus not been impleaded asmandatorily required under Section 82 of the Act . i.e. in cases where the petitioner prays for being declared as a successful candidate in the election . The High Court rejected the contention holding that the petitioner intended to implead Abul Khayer as Respondent No. 11 to the election petition but it was only a mistake in spelling by reason ofwhich he has been described as Abdul Khyer . Reliance was placed upon a decision of Orissa High Court reported in ILR ( 1981 ) 1 Cuttack 39 (43) - Morsingh Tripathy versus Gurubaru Majhi and others .
20-11-99
Seal OATH COMMISSIONER "
The only grievance is that the stamp and the name ofthe Oath Commissioner is not indicated in the true copy of the affidavit . We feel that if it was there it would have been better but absence of stamp and the name of Oath Commissioner will not be a vital or material deviation from the original nor it may in any manner mislead the returned candidate . Prima facie on perusal of the heading of the affidavit and detailed verification of the contents of the paragraphs , as indicated above , would normally lead one to believe that the averments have been made on affidavit . In Paragraph one of the affidavit there is a specific mention that the petitioner was acquainted with the facts of the case for the purpose of swearing of the affidavit in support of contention of corrupt practices taken recourse to by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 7. In the end the petitioner signs as 'deponent' and he is identified by Advocate'sClerk . That being the position , mere omission of indicating the name of the Oath Commissioner or an endorsement in the ture copy that the affidavit was attested by an Oath Commissioner bearing his stamp and seal etc. would not be material . Once an averment is there that affidavit was being sworn in support of allegation of corrupt practices and that the petitioner had put his signataaure , thereon , prima facie fulfillment of such a legal requirement is adequately reflected even in absence of name and seal etc. of Oath Commissioner in the ture copy.
Learned senior counsel Shri Bachawat then referred to two other points raised by Respondent No. 1 but repelled by the High Court . So far the first point is concerned , abnut the petition being time barred , he has very fairly given up the said point on being indicated referring to the original that the petition was filed on November 20 , 1999 and not on 28-11-1999.
Itmay be noted that in Paragraph I of the Election Petition it has been mentioned that the respondents were the contesting candidates from 9 - Tezpur Parlamentary Constituency that is to say that Respondent No. 11 was also impleaded as one who had contested the election from the said constituency. There was every intention to implead such a person as a respondent . It may then be noted that along with the election , copy of Return of Election is required to be filed in Form 21E under Rule 64 of the Conduct of Election Rules , 1961. It contains the result of the election as well as the list of candidates . The said list is on record as Annexure I to the election petition filed by the petitioner and the name of Abul Khayer is indicated at Serial No.7 having contested as an independent candidate . It is thus evident that it is not as if thecorrect name is not available on the record of the case . Apparently, it seems to be a case of spelling mistake . Instead of Abul letter ' d ' got added extra hence typed as Abdul in the array of parties and the spelling of Khayer as Khyer ommitting ' a' after ' kh ' . It so to be noted that address of Respondent No.11 is also indicated in the petition. It is not disputed that it is the address of the person who contested the election . In this Court there is anoffice report of service of notice on respondent No. 8 prepared on the basis of the report received from the Gauhati High Court . So far wrong spelling of Khyer is concerned it is of little consequence . Both words " Khyer " and " Khayar " would produce almost the same sound. Technically there may be difference but by way of example some may spell' Banerjee ' as ' Banerji ' or ' Saksena ' as ' Saxena ' or the like. Therefore such difference in spelling of Khayar is but to be ignored. There is certainly some difference in 'Abul ' and ' Abdul ' but there is amply material on record to indicate that the same period who had contestedelection was meant to be emplended e.g. the address of the person , the averment that the Respondent 7 to 18 had contested the election as well as the form of election return indicating names of all those who had contested the election and the names with correct spelling is on the record namely ' Abul Khayar ' . The respondent therefore gets no advantage put of above -noted point sought to be made out. The parties have however placed reliance on certain decisions on the point . On behalf of Respondent No.f refiance has been placed on Gorelal Shakva versus Mabaraj Singh Yadav 1995 The only other point which remains to be considered is that in the election petition name of Respondent No. 11 has been indicated as " Shri Abdul, Khyer " Nij Biswanath, Biswanathghat , District Sonitpur , Assam. ' According to Respondent No. I Abdul Khayer is the person who bad contested the election but he has not heen impleaded as a party instead some Abdul Khyer has 88
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2003/MAGHA 26, 1924
[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)]
respondent No. 1 relating to limitation and mention ofthe name of Abdul Khyer as respondent No. 11 are upheld . This disposes of SLP (c) ............ (CC 8664/01 ) also accordingly.
Costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
respondent No. 1
(R. C. Lahoti)
(Brijesh Kumar)
NewDelhi ,
October 29 , 2002 .
SECTION-VII
REPORTABLE-443-2002
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
No .: F. 3 Ed. , B.J , 18-9-2002
NewDelhi.
Dated : 3-1-2003
CORRIGENDUM
TheCourt's Judgment in C.A. No. 6593 of2000 etc. Ram Prasad Sarma V. Mani Kumar Subba & Ors . etc. (Dated: 29-10-2002) ..
For
Read
PageCol. No. No.
Line No.
82 1
does contain election petition
3 from bottom
83 1
the writ petition on the ground
election petition does not contain the Election petition on the ground
10&11 from top
2
83
Supp . ( 3 ) S.C.C. 407 wherein Respondent No. 10 was shown as Sanjay Kumar whereas correct, name should have been Sanjiv Kumar . Similar arguments seems to have been advanced that notice was not served on the correct respondent and the person who ought to have been impleaded, has not been impleaded . The High Court dismissed that petition for non - compline of Section 82 ( a) of the Act . This Court upset the decision of the High Court observing that High Court had made a mountain out of a mole hill as it was a mere typographical mistake . Then this Court noted that in the body of the petition at one place his name was indicated as Sanjiv Kumar and at another place his name was indicated as Sanjay Kumar. It is submitted that in the present case no application for correcting the name was moved nor any written objection was filed to indicate that it was a typing error. We feel that absence of any such application will not adversely affect the petition for the reasons we have already indicated earlier. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 687 - Κ. Kamarala Nadar versus Kunju Thevar and others . This is a case relating to non - joinder of necesssary parties . We are not concerned here with such a point . This case therefore , would be of no help to the respondent . the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a case reported in 1979 ( 1 ) S.C.R. 520. Shiv Chand versus Ujagar Singh and Anr . to indicate the approach which the Court may adopt while dealing with a case under Section 86 ( 1 ) of the Act . It is observed that the test is whether the election petition complies with provisions of Section 82, not whether the election petitioner has failed to comply with Section 82. The substance of the matter must govern , because hyper technicality when the public policy ofthe Statute is fulfilled, cannot be permitted to play the procedural tyrant to defeat the vital judicial process , namely, investigation into the merits of the case, 'We find no force in this point too raised by Respondent No. 1. No other point has been urged .
grounds among at others was
20from top
grounds amongst or among others was
[No. 82/ AS- HP/( 1/1999)/2000]
ByOrder,
GHANSHYAM KHOHAR, Secy.
In the result, we allow the Civil Appeal No. 6593 of 2000 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Courtdismissing the Election Petition under Section 86 ( 1 ) of the Representation of Peoples Act for non-compliance with provisions of Sub - section (3 ) of Section 81 of the Act . The findings of the High Court however , repelling the two other grounds as raised by the
Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapur , New Delhi - 110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054.