Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Regarding assistance of Mr. Mehra, Superintendent of Police, Patiala, it was contended by the respondent that in the absence of basic ingredients of Section 123(7)(d) of the Act that the function held on January 26, 2002 was with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, there was nothing to show how it could connect the respondent with the said function.

As to the allegation of respondent projecting himself as 'Maharaja of Patiala', it was stated that no such poster had been placed on record nor the contents of the poster had been reproduced. Thus, no material facts had come on record of undue influence. Regarding election expenses, the averments were totally vague, unnecessary and frivolous. The averments had been made with a view to prejudice and embarrass, with the object of delaying fair trial of the election petition. The provisions of Section 77 were not attracted. On merits also, it was contended by the respondent that no corrupt practice had been adopted by him and the allegations levelled against him were incorrect. It was, therefore, submitted that the election petition was liable to be dismissed. A replication to the written statement of the respondent was filed by the petitioner contending that the preliminary objections raised by the respondent were incorrect and false. Regarding affidavit and verification, it was stated that if the Court comes to the conclusion that there were some defects in the affidavit, permission may be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit. So far as corrupt practices are concerned, according to the petitioner, material facts and particulars had already been stated in the election petition. The allegations were clear, precise and disclosed a cause of action. The averments made in the election petition have been reiterated in the replication by giving several instances. It was repeated that corrupt practice had been adopted by the respondent. The election petition was thus required to be allowed by setting aside the election of the respondent.

6. Whether the election petition lacks material facts and particulars and discloses no cause of action as mentioned in preliminary objection No.3 to 10 of the written statement? OPR

7. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed being incomplete as mentioned in para no.11 of the preliminary objections of the written statement?

OPR

8. Whether the election petition is not verified as required under Order 6 Rule 15 of C.P.C., if so its effect? OPR Issues 5 and 8 related to the affidavit and verification of election petition. After considering the submissions of both the sides and referring to the relevant provisions of law in the light of decisions of this Court, the High Court held that the election petition was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of defect, if any, in verification and affidavit. Even if there was some defect, it was 'curable' and not fatal to the election petition. The Court also observed that along with the replication, the petitioner had placed on record an affidavit which was in conformity with the provisions of Rule 94-A and From 25 appended to the Rules. The affidavit was allowed to be placed on record without any objection by the other side. The issues were thus decided in favour of the election petitioner. So far as issues 6 and 7 are concerned, the Court was called upon to consider whether the election petition lacked 'material facts' and 'particulars' and did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be dismissed being incomplete as contended by the respondent. The Court stated that it was well established that an election petition was supposed to disclose all 'material facts' to constitute a complete cause of action. According to the Court, an election petition should contain concise statement of material facts and it was necessary 'to disclose fullest possible particulars'. The Court stated that the counsel cited several judgments showing the distinction between 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Hardwari Lal v. Kamal Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 214 : (1972) 2 SCR 742, the Court said that the material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent would not appear, the Court would give verdict in favour of the petitioner. The said view was reiterated by the Court in subsequent cases also. Then referring to para 4 of the election petition, the Court observed that the said para only contained 'reproduction of the wording of Section 123(7)(a) of the Act'. In the opinion of the Court, therefore, para 4 of the petition could not be treated as the statement of material facts regarding corrupt practice.

Then relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma, (1984) 2 SCC 64 : AIR 1984 SC 621, the Court observed that the allegations made in the election petition could not be said to be in the nature of 'material facts' as no details were given. The Court stated that in the replication, all details were given but they were "material facts" which the petitioner was required to state in his election petition and not in the replication which was filed beyond the period of limitation. Since in the election petition material facts had not been stated, the petition did not disclose a cause of action and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Regarding a complaint made by Jagdeep Singh Chowhan to the Chief Electoral Officer, the Court observed that in the election petition it was stated that a Committee was constituted in view of allegation that Mr. Chahal had violated the code of conduct and disciplinary action was required to be taken against him. It was recommended to issue notice to Mr. Chahal for major penalty, but the petition was silent whether such notice was issued or not. During the arguments, it transpired that no such notice was issued despite recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer. In connection with news items, the Court noted that those news items no where indicated as to what was the quantum of help sought from and rendered by Mr. Chahal to the respondent.

As to allegation of projecting himself as 'Maharaja of Patiala' in a poster issued by the respondent, the Court stated that the petitioner had failed to disclose material facts as there was nothing to show that the poster was issued by the respondent or by his supporters with his consent.

Regarding election expenses, the Court observed that mere non disclosure of expenditure would not be a corrupt practice. It is incurring of expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit which will amount to a corrupt practice. According to the Court, very vague averments had been made simply by stating that the respondent had incurred the expenses more than the prescribed limit, but no details had been given. According to the Court, in the election petition, it was stated that the respondent had not shown expenses of press conference held on January 29, 2002 in his return of expenses but nothing had been stated as to what was the total expenditure and the details had been given only in the replication. Then referring to the video-cassette, the Court observed that only light snacks, tea and cold drinks were served to the press correspondents. The Court stated;