Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Point No. 1 :

5. A perusal of the election petition in question will show that it challenges the election that took place in the Garhwal Parliamentary Constituency. Out of the two petitioners, Sri R. P. Nautiyal, petitioner No. 1, was a candidate in that election and Sri Satya Narain Singh, petitioner No. 2 was an elector. Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, lays down that 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 Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within 45 days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election, and the dates of their elections are different, the later of those two dates.

Point No. 2 :

12. It was contended that the election petition in this case has been signed only by one of the petitioners and not by both and it has not been presented by both and verified by both. In part this assertion is factually wrong. The election petition which is the basis of the present proceedings consists of 23 pages plus some more pages which are in the nature of annexures. On page 22 we find the signatures of both Satya Narain Singh and R.P. Nautiyal at the bottom, below the prayer clause. Therefore, it is clear that the petition has been signed by both the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent-objector, however, now argues that each page of the petition ought to have been signed by both the petitioners and not by one of them and, therefore, there is signing defect which goes to the very root of the matter, and should entail dismissal of the election petition. It is true that each separate page of the petition has been signed by only Sri R.P. Nautiyal and the signatures of Sri Satya Narain Singh do not appear on each page, but the law does riot require that each page should be signed at all. Signature on each page is made only by way of added precaution, in order to ensure that subsequent to the filing of the petition, a loose page is not removed and replaced by another, containing the allegations which go against the petitioner. The signing of the petition at the end by the petitioners is to be deemed to be signing of the petition and the responsibility of all the averments contained in all the pages of the petition, is thus owned by those who sign it at the end. There is no law to lay down that when a petition is moved, every page of it should be signed by all the petitioners. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel that signing in this case is defective.

16. Then comes the allied question, which gives rise to point No. 3, that the copy served on Sri Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna, respondent No. 7, has not been attested by both the petitioners. Sub-section (3) of section 81 lays down 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. In the present case along with an affidavit of Sri Shekhar Bahuguna son of Sri Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna, respondent No. 7, the present objector, a copy of the petition which was allegedly served on Sri Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna, has been placed on record. The first page of those papers is a notice from the High Court under the signature of the Deputy Registrar. Thereafter the copy of the election petition has been annexed. On each page there is the seal of the High Court and signatures of Sri R. P. Nautiyal and on page 22, as in the original petition, there are signatures below the prayer clause of both Satya Narain Singh and R. P. Nautiyal. On page 23 there is the verification by R. P, Nautiyal and below it, there is a seal to show that this is the attested copy of the election petition, and below it we again find signature of Sri R. P. Nautiyal. Against the affidavit by Sri Shekhar Bahuguna, an application had been moved praying to the court that Sri Shekhar Bahuguna should be summoned for cross-examination because it is not possible for the election petitioners to file a reply to the averments made in this affidavit, as they are matters within the personal and special knowledge of Shri Shekhar Bahuguna. On 6-11-84 on behalf of the objector it was submitted that the copy of the petition may be admitted and the affidavit may be ignored. The election petitioners thereafter did not press the application to summon Shri Shekhar Bahguna for cross-examination as the application became infructuous. They, however, argue that now there is no evidence that the copy filed is the one served on Sri H. N. Bahuguna. The law as laid down by Section 83(1) is that with every election petition as many copies have to be appended as there are respondents, mentioned in the election petition, and that each copy has to be attested by the petitioner tinder his own signatures to be a true copy of the original petition. Undoubtedly, along with the election petition in hand, copies had been filed and undoubtedly the copy which has been brought on the record is one of those copies because it bears the seal of the High Court and a covering letter of Sri L. S. Srivastava, Deputy Registrar, addressed to Sri Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is a copy which was filed with the election petition, and it is the copy which was served on Sri H. N. Bahuguna. These facts could have been disputed by the election petitioners by filing a counter-affidavit. If they thought that it was not a copy which was filed along with the election petition and that it did not bear the signatures of R. P. Nautiyal and the signatures of both the petitioners on page 22, then they should have taken that plea through an affidavit and since this has not been done, the presumption would be that it is one of the copies which was filed by the petitioners along with their original petition. Before the Registrar of the High Court the petitioners filed the said copy along with the election petition to be served on one of the parties to the election petition and in view of the forwarding letter attached to this petition, bearing the signature of the Registrar, as well as the seal of the High Court, I am satisfied that it is the copy which has been served on Sri Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna, the respondent No. 7.

19. This, therefore, brings us to the consideration of the question whether in a case where there are several petitioners, it will be necessary that the copies which are filed along with the petition in view of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, should be attested by all of them? The main purpose of attestion is to ensure that the copy which has been filed, and is to be served on the respondent, is a true copy of the original. There is no purpose other than this, behind this provision of the law. Therefore, if one of the several petitioners attests the copies, it will clearly be a substantial compliance of the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. We can look into this matter from another aspect also. What purpose will be served if a copy is attested by all the petitioners and not merely by one of them? and what difference will it make if it is attested by only one of them and not by all of them? In my opinion, it will not make any difference. Attestation by all will not advance the case any further. Attestation by one out of the many petitioners would be as much binding and valid as by all of them. The purpose of the law, as I have already mentioned above, being simply to ensure that a true copy is placed on record for service on the respondent is always well served if it is ensured that the copy is a true copy and for that purpose attestation is provided in Subsection (3) of section 81. Therefore, attestation by one will as much ensure that legal requirement, as attestation by all of them. A complete perusal of Section 81 and specially Subsection (3) thereof does not give any reasonable indication of the fact that the Legislature contemplated that the copies must be attested by all the petitioners howsoever large their number may be. The provisions of law are never intended to be mere rituals. They are supposed to serve a definite and distinct purpose and if that purpose is served by attestation of copies by one of the petitioners, nothing more is required. Thus I come to the conclusion that attestation by Sri R. P. Nautiyal alone, and not both by Sri R. P. Nautiyal and Sri Satya Narain Singh of the copy, is a proper attestation and a substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 81(3) of the Act.