Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioner"

38. All the averments made in paras 1 to 17 of the petition have been stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner and in the next breath the very same averments have been stated to be based on the information of the petitioner and believed by him to be true. The source of information is not disclosed. As observed by the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, the object of requiring verification of an election petition is to clearly fix the responsibility for the averments and allegations in the petition on the person signing the verification and, at the same time, discouraging wild and irresponsible allegations unsupported by facts. However, the defect of verification is not fatal to the petition, it can be cured (see Murarka Radhey Shyam Rm Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and A.S. Subbaraj v. M. Muthiah). In the present case the defect in verification was pointed out by raising a plea in that regard in the written statement. The objection was pressed and pursued by arguing the same before the Court. However, the petitioner persisted in pursuing the petition without proper verification which the petitioner should not have been permitted to do. In our opinion, unless the defect in verification was rectified, the petition could not have been tried............"

19. Another judgment upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent is R.P. Moidutty (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 35, which reads as under:-

"35. All the averments made in paras 1 to 17 of the petition have been stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner and in the next breath the very same averments have been stated to be based on the information of the petitioner and believed by him to be true. The source of information is not disclosed. As observed by the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora [(1991) 3 SCC 375 : AIR 1991 SC 1557] the object of requiring verification of an election petition is to clearly fix the responsibility for the averments and allegations in the petition on the person signing the verification and, at the same time, discouraging wild and irresponsible allegations unsupported by facts. However, the defect of verification is not fatal to the petition, it can be cured (see Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] and A.S. Subbaraj v. M. Muthiah [5 ELR 21] ). In the present case the defect in verification was pointed out by raising a plea in that regard in the written statement. The objection was pressed and pursued by arguing the same before the Court. However, the petitioner persisted in pursuing the petition without proper verification which the petitioner should not have been permitted to do. In our opinion, unless the defect in verification was rectified, the petition could not have been tried. For want of affidavit in the required form and also for lack of particulars, the allegations of corrupt practice could not have been enquired into and tried at all. In fact, the present one is a fit case where the petition should have been rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law as to pleadings."

20. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 511 [Overruled for this point], Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 AIR 1253, F.A. Sapa and Others v. Singora and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 375 and C.P. John v. Babu M. Palissery and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 547.

21. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the objection against maintainability of election petition on the ground of defective verification was raised as back as on 01.08.2022 and despite lapse of more than a year such defects in the verification have not been removed or cured by the election petitioner. An opportunity to cure or remove the defects in verification was given to the election petitioner by this Hon'ble Court but as evident from the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court/ Hon'ble Election Tribunal, the election petitioner declined to cure or remove the defects. The order dated 01.11.2022 is quoted below:-

52. The principles emerging from these decisions are that although non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act is a curable defect, yet there must be substantial compliance with the provisions thereof. However, if there is total and complete non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, then the petition cannot be described as an election petition and may be dismissed at the threshold.

62. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it seems quite clear that the affidavit filed by Prasanna Kumar in compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act was not an integral part of the election petition, and no such case was set up. It also seems quite clear that the affidavit was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. Therefore, the High Court was quite right in coming to the conclusion that the affidavit not being in the prescribed format of Form 25 and with a defective verification were curable defects and that an opportunity ought to be granted to Prasanna Kumar to cure the defects."