Allahabad High Court
Ram Charan vs Bhola Shankar Maurya And Ors. on 16 January, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987ALL134, AIR 1987 ALLAHABAD 134, (1986) 12 ALL LR 284
ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J.
1. This is an election petition under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Election to the reserved constituency No. 43 Bilsi district Budaun for one candidate to the Legislative Assembly of the State was held in early 1985. Last date for nomination was 6th Feb., 1985; the scrutiny was to take place on 7th Feb., 1985; the nomination could be withdrawn within 9th Feb., 1985. The poll was scheduled for Mar. 2, 1985. This was followed by counting of the ballot papers on 6th Mar., 1985. Initially there were seven nominations for the seat, out of which that of the respondent 6 was rejected and hence the remaining six, including the petitioner alone, remained in the field. The respondent 1 was declared elected having secured 30,944 votes; the petitioner got the next highest number of votes being 26,521. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition claiming that the election of the respondent 1 be declared void and also that the petitioner be declared elected.
3. The petition is contested by the respondent No. 1 who has put in an application under Section 83(1) of the Act read with Order VI, Rule 16 and Order VII, Rule 11 Civil P.C. to the effect that the petition does not contain a concised statement of material facts or full particulars of corrupt practice and on the impugned paragraphs being struck off there survives no cause of action in the petitioner's favour. This has been opposed by the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Sri S.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, candidly stated that the paras, which may be treated as surviving are para 17 and Grounds A and C/ para 20(a) and para 17 Ground G read with para 26(b)/(c). For the remaining impugned paras contained in the petition he has no objection to their being struck off.
6. Para 17, in so far as relevant, reads as under: --
"17. That the election of Respondent 1 was void and illegal on the following amongst other grounds :
A. Because Respondent 1 was holding an office of profit as a Public Notary and an objection was filed at the time of scrutiny before the Returning Officer, Budaun but the same has remained undisposed of on account of the special interest of the officials who were interested in getting the Congress candidate illegally elected. This application was supported by an affidavit of 7th Feb. 1985. The petitioner is filing a true copy of the application and affidavit challenging the validity of the nomination paper of the said Respondent 1 which is marked as Annexure '1' to this petition.
XXX C. B ecause the result of the election had been materially affected by accepting the nomination paper of Respondent 1 who had an office of profit as contemplated under Section 191 of the Constitution of India on the date of the nomination. As such he was disqualified to be a candidate at the election.".
Para 20(a) of the election petition states : --
"(a) That Respondent 1 is holding an office of profit as Public Notary and on that account has exercised influence and committed corrupt practice.".
7. Contention of Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that these paras do not fulfil the essential requirement of Section 83(1)(a)/(c) read with Section 100(1)(a) or Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act. In view of Section 83(1)(a) an election petition shall contain concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies; the requirement under Clause (c) is that the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Civil P.C. for the verification of pleadings. The proviso to this clause lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. The provision made in Section 100(1)(a) is to the effect that the election of the returned candidate shall be declared void if the Court is of opinion that on the date of his election he was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or the Act. The ground referred to in Clause (d) of Section 100(1)(a) is that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination.
8. Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution, dealing with the disqualifications for membership of the Legislative Assembly of a State, provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly of a State: --
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder.
9. In order to attract the ground contained in Section 100(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, the material facts to be averred in the election petition necessarily in such a case would be : --
(i) that the returned candidate held an office of profit on the date of election that is when the nomination papers came up for scrutiny;
(ii) that the office of profit was held under the Government of a State.
10. For purposes of Section 100(1)(d)(i) also besides contending that the result of election concerning the returned candidate has been materially affected it would necessarily have to be averred that the acceptance of nomination was improper and the basis for the alleged impropriety shall have to be spelled out such as the candidate concerned holding an office of profit under the State Government on the relevant date.
11. Upon looking into the pleadings in the light of the above it will be noticed that para 17 Ground A states merely that the respondent was holding an office of profit as a Public Notary without pointing that this office was held by him including on the date when the nomination came up for scrutiny or that the office of profit held was under the State Governments. In Ground C too there is to be found absence of averments on point of fact to this effect. In para 20(a) the petitioner is content by pleading that the respondent is holding an office of profit as Public Notary without stating that the office was thus held on the relevant date or that it is an office of profit under Government. Assuming on stretching what is narrated in Ground C of para 17 that the averment is to the effect that the office of profit was held on the date of scrutiny, the fact remains that there is no allegation as to the said office being under Government. It should have been necessary to state, this as a fact, for the petitioner for an additional reason also, namely, that an office of profit held under any local or other authority even though subject to the control of Government does not fall within the purview of Article 191(1)(a) as has been held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya v. Ajoy Biswas, (1985) 1 SCC 151: (AIR 1985 SC 211); D. R. Gurushantappa v. Abdul Khuddus Anwar, (1977) 1 SCC 70 (Reference seems to be to 1969(1) SCC 466 -- Ed.).
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention also to the verification contained in the election petition pertaining to these paragraphs which, on the face of it, does not fulfil the mandatory requirement, Grounds A and C of para 17 are verified upon legal advice; this leaves clearly unverified the factual aspect pertaining to those grounds. In regard to para 20(a) the verification narrates that it is on information received from workers and agents. Their identity is not disclosed nor is any other indication given to locate the sources of information and, as will presently appear, this itself constitutes material infirmity going to the root of the matter. Sri Mishra refers to Annexure-I, which is copy of an application alleged to have been made by one Rewa Ram on Feb. 7, 1985, objecting to the nomination of the returned candidate. Significantly the petitioner does not in his pleadings, state as a fact, that the respondent held the office of profit on the date of scrutiny under Government. This apart, the said application of Rewa Ram itself was unverified. Verification appended thereto is of mixed kind stating that the contents were true to his knowledge on the basis of the information received from the workers and agents believed to be true. There also we do not find the workers or agents disclosed nor is it clear nor is this averred that the applicant has personal knowledge in this respect or if he had knowledge to what extent did this pertain.
Taking up now para 17 Ground G it narrates : --
"Because the Respondent 1 having exceeded the limit of expenses prescribed and not having maintained the account according to particular/prescribed and having filed defective return of election and the election having materially affected on account of such default, the election of the said Respondent 1 should be set aside."
13. Para 26 in the election petition is to the following effect : --
"26. That the concised statement of material facts in respect of the ground No. C are given as follows : --
(a) That respondent 1 has exceeded the limit of the expenses provided under the Act and Rules and the details of the same is filed as Annexure '8'.
(b) That the said respondent 1 has not maintained true and correct accounts in accordance with the rules and has by such defiance of the provision materially affected the result of the election.
(c) That the Respondent 1 has filed wholly incorrect accounts which has materially affected the result of the election."
14. In view of Section 123(6) the incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 constitutes a corrupt practice. Section 77 makes provision for the account of election expenses and the maximum thereof. Particulars, which the account of election expenses must contain, are enumerated in Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. I have referred already to the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) to the effect that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form. The form is prescribed (Form No. 25) under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules.
15. Upon perusal of the election petition in the present it is manifest that the verification does not conform to the mandatory requirement in this behalf. Regarding para 26(a) the narration in the verification made is on information from workers and agents. It is unspecified as to which part is derived on perusal of the record and what is the part based on information received from workers and agents. Their identity remains undisclosed throughout. Sri Mishra found it difficult in face thereof to sustain the maintainability of para 26(a) in the petition. The case does not stand on stronger footing in so far as the pleadings are concerned in relation to para 26(b)(c) either. For this part too the verification made is that the same is based on information received from workers and agents and the point of objection remains the same. In accordance with the Rule 87, Conduct of Election Rules the Election Officer gives notice upon the account of election expenses being lodged. Rule 88 entitles any person on payment of a nominal fee to inspect any such account and also to obtain attested copies of such account or any part thereof. The petitioner herein does not found his averments upon any such inspection made of the account expenses lodged by the returned candidate nor does he refer to any copy thereof.
16. The law is settled that in stating the material facts it does not suffice merely to quote the words of the section. The fact which constitutes the corrupt practice must be stated and the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. As a plaint without disclosing a proper cause of action cannot be said to be a good plaint, so also an election petition without the material facts relating to the corrupt practice is no election petition at all. In Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 at p. 1212 it was held that : --
"The section is mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. What is the difference between material facts and particulars? The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct."
17. In Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan, AIR 1974 SC 1957 the respondent filed an affidavit along with the election petition. The affidavit did not disclose the source of information in respect of the speeches alleged to have been made by the appellant. Rule 11 Chapter V-A of the Rules of Court requires affidavit for purposes of the proviso to Section 83(1) to be verified in the manner laid down in Order XIX, Civil P.C. The Supreme Court laid emphasis in Virendra Kumar Saklecha (supra) upon the nondisclosure of grounds or sources of information in verification contained in the affidavit and held that the non-disclosure will indicate that the election petitioner did not come forward with the sources of information at the first opportunity and also that on this account there is no notice of contemporaneous evidence on which the election petition is based, to the other side. The importance of disclosure of grounds or sources of information was adjudged also from the other point of view, namely, that the election petitioner will not be able to make any departure from the sources or grounds.
18. Considered in the light of the discussion made in the above and for reasons above stated, the paragraphs aforementioned do not justify the essential requirement under Section 83 of the Act and consequently in view of the provisions contained in Order VI, Rule 16/Order VII, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code they would need be struck off. As I have mentioned already on these paragraphs being as well deleted there does not survive a cause of action to the petitioner to maintain this election petition, which fails in consequence. The recriminatory application made by the respondent 1 is also liable to be dismissed being infructuous.
19. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent 1 shall be entitled to costs from the petitioner, which I assess at rupees two hundred-fifty only. The recriminatory application made by the respondent is dismissed being infructuous.