Orissa High Court
Election vs Ananta Narayan Jena on 16 May, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT:CUTTACK
I.A. No.70 of 2024
(Arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024)
An application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 read with Order VI,
Rule 16 thereof and Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
***
Jagannath Pradhan ... Election Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
Ananta Narayan Jena
... Respondent.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Election Petitioner : Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. S.K. Dash, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 15.04.2025 :: Date of Order : 16.05.2025 I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 1 of 12 O RDER ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
This Interlocutory Application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 read with Order VI, Rule 16 thereof and Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has been filed by the returned candidate of the 112-Bhubaneswar Central (Madhya) Assembly Constituency i.e. (respondent in Election Petition No.25 of 2024) against Jagannath Pradhan, (Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.25 of 2024) praying for rejection/dismissal of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short the R.P. Act) only for non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951, as he (Election Petitioner) has not furnished the documents (those documents have been relied by the Election Petitioner indicating under the heading i.e. Documents relied upon in the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 after its prayer portion) to the respondent along with the copies of the Election Petition.
2. It is the case of the respondent in this I.A. No.70 of 2024 that, after the prayer portion in the Election Petition No.25 of 2024, the Election Petitioner has given a list of documents relied by him to substantiate his prayers made in his Election Petition against the respondent (Ananta Narayan Jena). I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 2 of 12 In order to have a clarity about the list of documents relied by the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.25 of 2024, I thought it proper to place the same on record for the just decision of this Interlocutory Application and the said documents are as follows:-
"List of Documents relied upon i. Nomination papers along with the affidavit and other documents filed by the Respondent before the Returning Officer, 112-Bhubaneswar Central Assembly Constituency (to be called from the custody of the Returning Officer, 112-Bhubaneswar Central Assembly Constituency).
ii. Certified Copy of Form 20.
iii. Downloaded copy of the detailed Second Randomization Report from the official website of the Election Commission of India.
iv. Downloaded copy of the Voter Turnout Report from the official website of the Election Commission of India. v. Copies of Form 17-C Part I. vi. True Copy of the objection filed by the Election Petitioner for recounting.
vii. True Copy of the rejection order for recounting by the RO. viii. All such other documents as found to be necessary at the time of hear."
3. It is also the case of the respondent in the I.A. No.70 of 2024 that, though, the Election Petitioner has referred the above documents in his Election Petition I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 3 of 12 No.25 of 2024 as the foundation of the case against him (respondent), but the contents of the said documents have not been reproduced in the Election Petition, for which, the said documents relied by the Election Petitioner- Jagannath Pradhan are the integral part of the Election Petition. Therefore, the copies thereof were required to be supplied by the Election Petitioner to the Respondent along with the copies of the Election Petition as per the provisions of law envisaged in Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but the Election Petitioner has not provided copy of any of the above documents relied by him under the above heading i.e. "Documents relied upon" to the respondent.
When the Election Petitioner has not supplied/provided copy of any of the above documents relied by him with the notices of the Election Petition in Election Petition No.25 of 2024 to the respondent-Ananta Narayan Jena, for which, there is total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sub- Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951 by the Election Petitioner and for non-compliance of such mandatory provisions of law by the Election Petitioner, the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 of the Election Petitioner-Jagannath Pradhan is liable to be rejected/dismissed as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951.
I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 4 of 12
4. The Election Petitioner has vehemently objected to the above prayer of the respondent-Ananta Narayan Jena made in I.A. No.70 of 2024 stating in his objection that, he (Election Petitioner-Jagannath Pradhan) is one of the contesting candidate of 112-Bhubaneswar Central (Madhya) Assembly Constituency. He has specifically indicated the contents of all the documents relied by him in his Election Petition No.25 of 2024 at Page No.41 after its prayer portion under the heading i.e. Documents relied upon, for which, the said documents cannot be treated as the integral part of his Election Petition. So, there is no requirement under law to provide the copies of the said documents to the respondent along with the copies of the Election Petition, because, the said documents are not the integral part of the Election Petition. For which, it is not a case of non- compliance of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951 by the Election Petitioner. Therefore, the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner cannot be dismissed as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 of the R.P. Act.
The copies of the Election Petition containing the contents of the documents relied upon in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner have already been served upon the Respondent as per law along with the notices of the Election Petition in both the ways i.e. through Registered Post as well as through Process of the Court, for which, the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 5 of 12 filed by the Election Petitioner does not fall under the trappings of Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 for its dismissal summarily as per Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951.
That apart, the respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 has neither pleaded in the I.A., nor in his written statement that, he has been prejudiced to set up his defence for non-furnishing the copies of the documents relied by the Election Petitioner. The documents, those have been referred to in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner and contents of which have been reflected/indicated in the body of the Election Petition are the public documents and the same are available under the public domain i.e. in the Website of the Election Commission of India and the said documents have been supplied to the pooling agents/counting agents/election agents of the respondent at the end of the pooling of votes and during the course of counting of votes. In addition to that, the respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 has not stated anything in the Interlocutory Application or in his written statement about the non-availability of the said documents with him. As such, the documents referred to in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner are neither out of reach of the respondent nor there is any averment to show on behalf of the respondent that, the said documents have not been supplied to him by the I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 6 of 12 authorities of election either personally or through his Pooling Agents/Counting Agents or Election Agents.
5. Therefore, the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner-Jagannath Pradhan can never be rejected/dismissed as per Sub- Section (1) of Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 on the ground of non- compliance of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951, as there is no material on behalf of the respondent to show about the non- compliance of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951 by the Election Petitioner.
6. I have already heard from the learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 and learned Counsel for the Election Petitioner of the said Election Petition No.25 of 2024.
7. As per the provisions of law envisaged in Sections 80 & 83 of the R.P Act, 1951, an Election Petition shall contain only the concise statements of the material facts, on which, the election petitioner relies. The documents/annexures relied by the Election Petitioner in his/her Election Petition, whose contents are not described/reflected in the body of the Election Petition, the said documents would become the integral part of the Election Petition, but when, the contents of the documents/annexures, on which, the Election Petitioner relies in his/her I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 7 of 12 Election Petition are described/reflected in the body of the Election Petition, the said documents/annexures shall not be the integral part of the Election Petition.
8. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
i. In a case between Ramesh Rout Vs. Rabindra Nath Rout reported in 2012 (I) OLR (SC) 130 that, an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the election petitioner relies. (Para No.52) ii. In a case between AshrAf Kokkur vs. K.V. Abdul Khader, Etc. at Para Nos.14 & 16 reported in 2014 (4) Civil Law Times Page-81 (SC) that, as per Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951, Election Petition need contain only concise statement of material facts and not material particulars. Schedule or Annexure which is merely an evidence in case and included only for sake of adding strength to petitioner, does not form integral part of Election Petition.
iii. In a case between Ajay Maken Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta & Another reported in 116 (2013) CLT (SC) 130 that, an annexure to an election petition, whose content is not fully described in the body of the main petition, would become the integral part of the election petition.
9. Here in this Election Petition at hand vide Election Petition No.25 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner, he (Election Petitioner) has specifically described/indicated the contents of the documents relied by him in Para Nos.2,4,5,19 & 20 of his Election Petition.
I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 8 of 12
For which, in view of the propositions of law clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the documents relied upon in the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 by the Election Petitioner are not the integral part of his Election Petition. Therefore, as per law, the respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 is not entitled to get the copies of the documents relied by the election petitioner in his Election Petition along with the copies of Election Petition. Because, in the copies of the election petitions (those have been served upon the respondent along with the notices of the Election Petition), the contents of all the documents relied by the Election Petitioner have been indicated/reflected.
10. It is the settled propositions of law that, an Election Petition under the R.P. Act, 1951 cannot be thrown out at its initial stage as per Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 only for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81(3) of the said Act.
It has been envisaged in Section 81 (3) of the R.P. Act, 1951 that, "every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition."
The purpose and object of the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the R.P. Act, 1951 is to put the returned candidate on notice of various allegations I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 9 of 12 alleged against him in order to enable him to defend himself effectively in the Election Petition and this is a stipulation flowing from requirement of one of the basic postulates of the principles of natural justice.
11. When the contents of the documents relied upon in the Election Petition by the election petitioner has been specifically indicated/reflected in Para Nos.2,4,5,19 & 20 of his Election Petition No.25 of 2024, then, as per law, the said documents have not become the integral part of the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner. For which, non-supply of the copies of the said documents (the contents of which, have been described in the body of the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner) to the respondent along with the Election Petition shall not entail for dismissal of the Election Petition filed by the Election Petitioner at the threshold on such ground.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
i. In a case between Ajay Maken Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta & Another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 489 that, the purpose of the stipulation under Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act, 1951, is to put returned candidate on notice of various allegations made against him in order to enable him to defend himself effectively in the Election Petition. This is a stipulation flowing from requirement of one of the basic postulates of the principles of natural justice.
ii. In a case between Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 22 that, if the Court feels that the particulars as given in the Election Petition are deficient in any manner, the petitioner can be I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 10 of 12 directed to supply the particulars and make the deficiency good. In any case, deficiency in particulars could not have been a ground for dismissing the Election Petition at the threshold.
iii. In a case between Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan & Others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.C.C. 302 that, an Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a "substantial compliance" of the provisions.(Para No.7)
12. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the documents relied upon by the Election Petitioner in his Election Petition No.25 of 2024 are not the integral part of his Election Petition, as the contents of the said documents have been indicated/reflected in Para Nos.2,4,5 19 & 20 of that Election Petition and when there is no material in the record on behalf of the respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 to show about the total non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the R.P. Act, 1951 by the Election Petitioner and when the respondent has already taken his defence in his written statement after being fully aware about the contents of the said documents relied upon in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner and when the respondent of the Election Petition has his full knowledge about the contents of the documents relied by the Election Petitioner and when the documents relied in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner are available under the public domain having its easy access to the same including the respondent, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 11 of 12 in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions indicated above in Para Nos.8 & 11 of this Judgment, the Election Petition vide ELPET No.25 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner (Jagannath Pradhan) can never be rejected/dismissed as per Sub- Section (1) of Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951. Therefore, there is no merit in this I.A. filed by the respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024. For which, this I.A. filed by the respondent in Election Petition No.25 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed.
13. In result, this I.A. filed by the respondent of the Election Petition No.25 of 2024 i.e.Ananta Narayan Jena is dismissed on contest against the Election Petitioner-Jagannath Pradhan.
14. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 16 .05. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 17-May-2025 18:23:05I.A. No.70 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No.25 of 2024 Page 12 of 12