Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramniwas Rawat vs Mukesh Malhotra on 23 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
1 EP. No. 24 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ELECTION PETITION No. 24 of 2024
RAMNIWAS RAWAT
Versus
MUKESH MALHOTRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan Kumar Dwivedi
and Shri Bal Krishna Sharma - Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Pratip Visoriya -Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Ravindra Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Shri Navnidhi Parharya - Advocate for respondent No.4.
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.10.
Reserved on : 17.04.2025
Pronounced on : 23.04.2025
__________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.2228/2025 and IA. No.2527/2025.
IA. No.2527/2025:
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the copy which was sent along with the notice is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 81(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951. The petition does not contain the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 2 EP. No. 24 of 2024 impression of seal, name, affirmation and endorsement by the notary. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has relied upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra etc. Vs. Shanti Lal Khoiwal etc. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1691. It is further submitted that Supreme Court by judgment passed in the case of Anil R. Deshmukh Vs. Onkar N. Wagh and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 732 has held that if notice did not contain endorsement of attestation and stamp of seal of the attesting officer and if true copies of affidavit containing endorsement of verification etc. is supplied at a later stage i.e. long before stage of argument, then defect in non-supply of true copy is curable. It is further submitted that thereafter both the judgments were considered by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of T.M. Jacob Vs. C. Poulose and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 1359 and held that both the judgments are correct under the facts and circumstances of the respective cases. Thus, it is submitted that the copy of notice which was sent does not contain any impression of notarial act, therefore, the only consequence is the dismissal of Election Petition under Section 86 of Representation of People Act. Furthermore, it is submitted that later on, on 24.03.2025, the election petitioner has supplied a copy of election petition which was downloaded from the official website of the High Court "ERP". This notice also contains the endorsement made by the Judicial Registrar as well as the presenting officer which clearly means that the copy which was supplied on 24.03.2025 was not the true copy of the election petition which was presented on 30.12.2024 and accordingly, the said copy cannot cure the defect. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the corrected copy was supplied to the returned candidate only and no copy was supplied to any of the other contesting respondents. It is submitted that since the election petitioner has also sought that he be declared as successful candidate therefore all the contesting Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 3 EP. No. 24 of 2024 candidates are necessary party and are entitled to true copy of election petition, accordingly, relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sahodrabai Rai Vs. Ram Singh Aharwar and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 1079, M. Karunanidhi Vs. H.V. Handa and others reported in AIR 1983 SC 558 and Mulayam Singh Yadav Vs. Dharampal Yadav and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2565.
I.A. No.2228/2025:
3. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that no cause of action has arisen and accordingly the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Election Petition has been filed on solitary ground of suppression of criminal antecedents. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that Section 33 A of Representation of People Act requires that only those cases i.e. (i) where the trial is pending and charges have been framed (ii) where a person has been convicted for more than one year's RI are mandatorily required to be disclosed. However, in two cases the returned candidate was punished for less than one year, therefore, in the light of Section 33 A of Representation of People Act, non-disclosure would not invite the corrupt practice. So far as other two cases which are pending against the returned candidate are concerned, the same were disclosed in the affidavit. It is submitted that although in front of description of those two criminal cases, returned candidate had mentioned "ykxw ugha gksrk" but that declaration by itself would not mean that the respondent had suppressed the pendency of two criminal cases. It is further submitted that there is no averment in the election petition that non-disclosure or incorrect disclosure of criminal cases has materially affected the result of election. Furthermore the affidavit filed in support of corrupt practice is not in accordance with Form 25 prescribed under the Representation of People Act and the election petitioner has also not Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 4 EP. No. 24 of 2024 disclosed the source of information in his affidavit. To buttress his contention, counsel for returned candidate has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of C.P. John Vs. Babu M. Palissery and Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 16, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar & Others reported in [2023] 4 S.C.R. 798, Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and another reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 394, Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Others reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 523, Ravi Namboothiri Vs. K.A. Baiju and others reported in AIROnline 2022 SC 883 and L.R. Shivaramagowda etc. Vs. T.M. Chandrashekar etc. reported in AIR 1999 SC 252. It is further submitted that material facts have not been pleaded and relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of (2001) 8 SCC 233, Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6812 and Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3026.
4. Per contra, both the applications are vehemently opposed by counsel for election petitioner.
5. So far as the compliance/non-compliance of provisions of Section 81(3) of Representation of People Act is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for election petitioner that the Supreme Court in the case of T. Phungzathang Vs. Hangkhanlian and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 358 has held that even if the copy supplied to respondent does not bear the endorsement of affirmation or seal or name of the notary, would not be fatal requiring dismissal of election petition as long as the original affidavit is in accordance with law. So far as the contention raised by counsel for respondent No.1 as regards the lack of material fact is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for the election petitioner that suppression of criminal antecedents by itself is sufficient to hold that the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practices. Furthermore, the election Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 5 EP. No. 24 of 2024 petitioner has specifically pleaded in the election petition that immediately after the result was declared, when the general public came to know about pendency of criminal cases, then they were shocked and the margin of votes received by the election petitioner and the returned candidate was only 7,000/- and the corrupt practice played by returned candidate has materially affected the election result. It is submitted that merely because words "materially affected"
have not been used in the election petition would not mean that the pleadings made in respect of the effect of suppression of criminal antecedents can be ignored. It is submitted that only facts are to be pleaded and not the law. Furthermore, it is submitted that it is for the High Court to decide as to whether the material available on record has materially affected the election or not as required under Section 100(1) of Representation of People Act.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of T. Phungzathang (supra) has held as under:
17. In the above-declared legal position, if we examine the case in hand, we notice that the only lacuna pointed out by the contesting respondent in his application in Civil Miscellaneous Election Case No. 3 of 2000 is that the copy supplied to him did not contain the verification or affirmation made by the Oath Commissioner or the prescribed authority as required in Form 25 and Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It is not the case of Respondent 1 that the original affidavit filed along with the election petition in Form 25 did not contain such verification or affirmation. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact that such affirmation or verification was made in the original affidavit filed before the High Court.
Therefore, the question arising in this appeal is: would this omission as pointed out by the respondent in his petition, ipso facto entail dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act? In view of the law laid down in Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the answer then should be "no" because by such omission the copy supplied will not cease to be a "true copy" and there is no possibility of any prudent person being in any manner misled in defending Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 6 EP. No. 24 of 2024 himself or being prejudiced in the defence of his case. Further, such omissions are only curable irregularities.
18. In this appeal, it is also to be noted that on coming to know of the omission pointed out by the respondent, the appellant had, on 6- 6-2000, a few days before the starting of the arguments supplied fresh copies of the affidavit containing the verification as found in the original affidavit in its entirety, hence, as was laid down in the case of Deshmukh [(1999) 2 SCC 205] it should be held that the defects pointed out in the petition being curable, have been cured.
19. Having come to the conclusion that the facts of the present appeal are fully covered by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] and Deshmukh case [(1999) 2 SCC 205] we will now discuss the applicability of Harcharan Singh Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] to the facts of this case bearing in mind that the High Court has relied on this case also to dismiss the election petition. It is true that in Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] this Court extended the principle laid down in Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] but then this Court in Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] in clear terms held that the application of the principle found in Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] is confined only to the facts of that case; meaning thereby that it is applicable only in cases where the original affidavit filed before the High Court contained the omissions and not to copies of the affidavit supplied to the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that the application of the principle in Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] to the facts of Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] is clearly impermissible. In that view of the matter, the decision in Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] being contrary to Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the same cannot be construed as a good law any more. Therefore, the High Court in the instant case could not have relied on Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] to dismiss the election petition.
20. Before we conclude, we must note that the appellant had in support of his argument raised an additional contention to the effect that assuming that irregularities pointed out by the respondent in the copy of the affidavit supplied to him is an incurable defect, even then the election petition could not have been dismissed in its entirety because it had raised other substantial grounds questioning Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 7 EP. No. 24 of 2024 the declaration of result in favour of Respondent 1. In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this issue because of the view expressed on the main contention argued in this appeal.
21. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for disposal of the election petition on merits. No costs.
R.C. LAHOTI, J. (concurring)-- I am in respectful agreement with the order proposed by my learned Brother N. Santosh Hegde, J. and place on record my concurrence with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by him. However, I propose to assign additional reasons in support of the view taken by my learned Brother.
23. The relevant facts have been succinctly stated and relevant provisions of law quoted by my learned Brother, yet a quick recap of the facts and relevant statutory provisions, as a prologue to this opinion of mine, would be in order. It is undisputed that the election petition filed by the appellant, putting in issue the election of Respondent 1, alleges commission of corrupt practice by Respondent 1 and also pleads grounds other than commission of corrupt practice, in support of the relief for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void. The election petition is signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleadings. The petition is accompanied by an affidavit in Form 25 as required by proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter "the Act") and Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter "the Rules"). The affidavit so filed has been sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths and bears, to that effect, an endorsement, signature and rubber stamp of the Oath Commissioner administering oath to the deponent in the manner and form contemplated by Form 25. It is also not disputed that the set of the copies which accompanied the election petition at the time of filing and which was delivered to Respondent 1 along with the writ of summons was complete in all respects excepting that the endorsement made by the Oath Commissioner attesting the affidavit to have been sworn by the deponent before him, his signature and rubber stamp do not appear on the copy of the affidavit delivered Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 8 EP. No. 24 of 2024 along with the copy of election petition to Respondent 1. On 22-5- 2000 an application was filed by Respondent 1 before the learned Designated Election Judge under Sections 83 and 86 of the Act calling for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the verification on the election petition was defective and material facts and particulars as to the alleged corrupt practice were not given but therein no grievance was raised that the copy delivered to Respondent 1 was not in conformity with the original and, therefore, Respondent 1 was prejudiced in his defence. On 5-6-2000 another application was filed by Respondent 1 wherein such an objection was taken. Soon on receipt of the copy of the application, served on the petitioner out of the court, the counsel for the election petitioner delivered another set of copies of election petition with affidavit which had the endorsement and rubber stamp of the Oath Commissioner as it was on the original and this was done before the application came up for hearing before the learned Designated Election Judge. However, the learned Judge felt that there was non- compliance with Section 83(1)(c) proviso read with Section 81(3) and hence the petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act.
24. Section 83(1) of the Act requires an election petition to plead material facts setting forth full particulars of alleged corrupt practice and to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. The proviso enacted to sub-section (1) requires 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. Rule 94-A (introduced by an amendment in the Rules w.e.f. 27-2-1962) requires that an affidavit referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 shall be sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths and shall be in Form 25. Form 25 appended to the Rules requires the election petitioner to verify on solemn affirmation or oath the statements about the commission of corrupt practice and the particulars of such corrupt practice distinctly stating to what extent they are true to his knowledge and to what extent they are true to his information. The form also prescribes the following endorsement to appear below the signature of the deponent on affidavit:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 9 EP. No. 24 of 2024"Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Shri/Shrimati ... at ... this ... day of ..., 19....
Before me, Magistrate of the First Class/Notary/ Commissioner of Oaths."
The requirement of Section 83(1) proviso is of an "affidavit in prescribed form". An endorsement by the specified officer before whom the affidavit is sworn is not the requirement mentioned in the section. Rule 94-A can be dissected into two parts: (i) the affidavit shall be in Form 25, and (ii) it shall be sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths. What is prescribed is the form of affidavit. Swearing in before one of the three officers is the mode and manner of swearing in the affidavit. The latter requirement does not relate to the form of affidavit; it prescribes the persons recognised by the Act and the Rules as competent to administer oath to the deponent of the affidavit for the purposes of Section 83(1) read with Rule 94-A and suggests, for the sake of convenience and consistency, the manner of endorsement to be made by the Magistrate, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths administering oath to the deponent. Such endorsement made by the officer administering oath to the deponent is not an integral part of the affidavit. Preparing, signing and swearing an affidavit are acts of the deponent; administering oath and making an endorsement in proof thereof on the affidavit are acts of the officer administering the oath.
25. In T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the Constitution Bench has reaffirmed the law as stated earlier by two Constitution Benches in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal [AIR 1964 SC 1027 : (1964) 6 SCR 213] and has also explained and expanded the principles laid down by the two earlier Constitution Benches. In T.M. Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] copy of the election petition delivered to the contesting respondent did not show that the verification of the Notary Public required as per Rule 94-A and Form 25 was contained in the original and, therefore, the copy was objected to as being defective and amounting to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act. The case was placed before the Constitution Bench specifically for reconsidering Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 10 EP. No. 24 of 2024 the three-Judge Bench decision in Dr Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal [(1996) 5 SCC 181] and while doing so the Constitution Bench also noticed another later three-Judge Bench decision of the Court in Anil R. Deshmukh v. Onkar N. [(1999) 2 SCC 205] The law laid down by the Constitution Bench may be summed up as under:
(i) The object of serving a "true copy" of an election petition and the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice of 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 of substance and not of form. (SCC p. 290, para 35)
(ii) The test to determine whether a copy was a true one or not was to find out whether any variation from the original was calculated to mislead a reasonable person. (SCC p. 288, para
33)
(iii) The word "copy" does not mean an absolutely exact copy. It means a copy so true that nobody can by any possibility misunderstand it. (SCC p. 289, para 34)
(iv) Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) was sufficient and the petition could not be dismissed, in limine, under Section 86(1) where there had been substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act. (SCC p. 289, para 34)
(v) There is a distinction between non-compliance with the requirement of Section 81(3) and Section 83. A substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) read with the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act is enough. Defects in the supply of true copy under Section 81 of the Act may be considered to be fatal, where the party has been misled by the copy on account of variation of a material nature in the original and the copy supplied to the respondent. The prejudice caused to the respondent in such cases would attract the provisions of Section 81(3) read with Section 86(1) of the Act. The same consequence would not follow from non-
compliance with Section 83 of the Act. (SCC p. 291, para 37) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 11 EP. No. 24 of 2024
(vi) The argument that since proceedings in election petitions are purely statutory proceedings and not civil proceedings as commonly understood, there is no room for invoking and importing the doctrine of substantial compliance into Section 86(1) read with Section 81(3) of the Act, cannot be accepted and has to be repelled. (SCC p. 291, para 38)
(vii) It is only the violation of Section 81 of the Act which can attract the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance as expounded in Murarka Radhey Shyam [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] and Ch. Subbarao [AIR 1964 SC 1027 : (1964) 6 SCR 213] cases. The defect of the type provided in Section 83 of the Act, on the other hand, can be dealt with under the doctrine of curability, on the principles contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. This clearly emerges from the scheme of Sections 83(1) and 86(5) of the Act. (SCC p. 291, para 38)
(viii) A certain amount of flexibility is envisaged. While an impermissible deviation from the original may entail the dismissal of an election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act, an insignificant variation in the true copy cannot be construed as a fatal defect. It is, however, neither desirable nor possible to catalogue the defects which may be classified as of a vital nature or those which are not so. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast formula can be prescribed. The tests suggested in Murarka Radhey Shyam case [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] are sound tests and are now well settled. (SCC p. 292, para 40)
26. Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] was referred to, doubted and distinguished in Anil R. Deshmukh [(1999) 2 SCC 205] which also is a three-Judge Bench decision. Both these decisions were placed before the Constitution Bench in T.M. Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] . In Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] the Constitution Bench decisions in Ch. Subbarao [AIR 1964 SC 1027 : (1964) 6 SCR 213] and Murarka Radhey Shyam [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] have been just referred to, vide para 10, but not dealt Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 12 EP. No. 24 of 2024 with. In T.M. Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the Constitution Bench has clearly held that the view taken in Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] must be confined to the fact situation of that case and cannot be considered to be of general application. The statement of law in Anil R. Deshmukh case [(1999) 2 SCC 205] has been approved wherein the copy of the affidavit delivered to the respondent did not bear the endorsement of attestation or the seal or stamp of the attesting officer found on the original. But for the absence of the notarial endorsement, it was a true copy of the original as it was a xerox copy and was attested as "true copy" under the signature of the election petitioner. A copy along with notarial endorsement was later on furnished to the respondent. Applying the theories of substantial compliance and of curability this Court held that the election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine. In Harcharan Singh Josh v. Hari Kishan [(1997) 10 SCC 294] the defect in the copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent was the same as is in the present case and a three-Judge Bench of this Court, solely by relying on Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] held that the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine. In Dr Shipra [(1996) 5 SCC 181] and Harcharan Singh Josh [(1997) 10 SCC 294] -- both three- Judge Bench decisions, this Court has held the defect to be not curable and the concept of substantial compliance having no application in such a case. In Murarka Radhey Shyam case [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] and T.M. Jacob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the Constitution Benches have held such a defect to be curable and the test of substantial compliance to be applicable. The very premise on which the decisions in Dr Shipra [(1996) 5 SCC 181] and Harcharan Singh Josh [(1997) 10 SCC 294] proceed, thus, runs counter to the view taken by the Constitution Bench. In view of the Constitution Bench decisions, Dr Shipra case [(1996) 5 SCC 181] and Harcharan Singh Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] cease to be good law.
8. Thus, it is clear that if the copy of election petition which was supplied to respondents did not contain the impression of seal, name, endorsement and affirmation by the notary, then that by itself would not invite dismissal of election petition under Section 86 of Representation of People Act. Furthermore, the election petitioner had already supplied the true copy of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 13 EP. No. 24 of 2024 election petition on 24.03.2025. On 24.03.2025, the following order was passed:
"Shri Dwivedi counsel for election petitioner prays for and is granted one week's time to file reply to I.A. Nos.2233/2025, 2228/2025 and 2229/2025.
At this stage, it is submitted by Shri Dwivedi that he is ready to supply fresh attested copy of election petition to the counsel for respondent No.1 and accordingly, a copy of same is supplied to Shri Pratip Visoriya. The fact of belated supply of attested copy of election petition is kept open and shall be considered on the next date of hearing. Specifically when no copy of attested election petition to any other respondent(s) has been supplied.
Now, the petitioners are not permitted to supply the additional set of attested copies of election petition to any other respondents.
List this case on 01.04.2025."
9. Thus, it is clear that so far as the returned candidate is concerned, the true copy of the election petition was supplied. So far as non-supply of the true copies to the other respondents is concerned, it is true that in the light of relief sought by election petitioner, each & every candidate is a necessary party, but in view of the fact that defect is curable, therefore, the election petitioner is directed to supply a complete set of true copy of the election petition by next date of hearing.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that election petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the copy of notice which was served on the respondents did not contain the impression of seal, name of notary or endorsement of affirmation by the notary.
11. Accordingly, IA. No.2527/2025 is hereby rejected.
12. So far as question of non-disclosure of cause of action is concerned, counsel for respondent/returned candidate was directed to address this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 14 EP. No. 24 of 2024 with regard to intention of returned candidate in mentioning words "ykxw ugha gksrk" in front of two criminal cases which were disclosed by him in the affidavit. Except submitting that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of returned candidate, no explanation could be submitted by counsel for returned candidate as to why the words "ykxw ugha gksrk" were mentioned in front of details of criminal cases which were pending against returned candidate. Since the interpretation and meaning of words "ykxw ugha gksrk" require appreciation of evidence, thus, it is clear that for the purposes of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, election petitioner has made out a case thereby disclosing cause of action which makes the election petition triable.
13. So far as the lack of material facts is concerned, it is clear that election petitioner in paragraph 16 to 21 of election petition has pleaded the material facts. Merely because the words "materially affected" have not been mentioned in the election petition, it cannot be said that the material facts have not been disclosed because it is suffice to mention here that only facts are to be pleaded and not the law. Section 100(1) of Representation of People Act makes it mandatory for the High Court to give a finding as to whether corrupt practice has materially affected the result or not. Thus, it is for the High Court to decide that suppression had any material effect on the result/outcome of the election or not. In the considered opinion of this Court, the election petitioner has pleaded all the material facts which are necessary for trial of election petition. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Brajesh Singh Vs. Sunil Arora and others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 241, Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294, Public Interest Foundation and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2019) 3 SCC 224 and People's Union For Civil Liberties And Another Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 1 has repeatedly held Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM 15 EP. No. 24 of 2024 that it is for the political parties as well as contesting candidates to disclose their criminal antecedents because it is the right of the voter to know about the criminal antecedents of the contesting candidate. Furthermore, on 18.03.2024 even the Election Commission has also issued guidelines requiring political parties as well as their candidates to disclose the criminal antecedents of contesting candidates. Thus, the judgments which were relied upon by respondent to show that the suppression of fact with regard to complete income or number of vehicles of the returned candidate stand on a different footing but it is the mandatory requirement for every contesting candidate to honestly disclose the pendency of all the criminal cases. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that not only the election petition contains material facts for trial of election petition but also discloses cause of action.
14. Accordingly, I.A. No.2228/2025 is also hereby rejected.
15. At this stage, it is submitted by Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate, that he has also filed an objection with regard to non-supply of the additional true copy of the election petition.
16. Since this Court has already come to a conclusion that the copy of notices which were supplied to the respondents on the earlier occasion is the sufficient compliance of Section 81(3) of Representation of People Act, accordingly, the objection filed by Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate, is hereby rejected.
17. Respondents are granted two weeks' time to file their written statement.
18. List this case on 05.05.2025.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/23/2025 8:04:58 PM