Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.86 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Hardwari Lal vs Kanwal Singh on 7 December, 1971
The averments contained in paragraph 4 pertaining to
Ground No.l do not satisfy the test prescribed in Manubhai
Anarsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi & Ors., (supra) and
Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, (supra). The most important
test which remained unsatisfied is as regards the omission
to satisfy in what manner the assistance was obtained and
procured by the election-candidate for promoting the
prospects of his election.
Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Manubhai, Nandlal Amersey vs Popatial Manilal Joshi & Ors on 7 January, 1969
It is not mentioned as to who procured or obtained the
services of Shri Beg, in what manner he obtained the
services and what were the facts which went to show that it
was with the consent of the respondent. Unless these
"essential facts which would clothe the petition with a
cause of action and which will call for an answer from the
returned candidate are pleaded as per the law laid down in
Manubbai Nandlal Amarsey v. Popatlal Hanilal Joshi & Ors.,
(supra) it cannot be said that the petition discloses a
cause of action in regard to
803
this charge. In the absence of these material facts and
particulars the Court could not have rendered a verdict in
favour of the election petitioner in case the returned
candidate had not appeared to oppose the election petition.
It is not sufficient to show that a Government servant had
appeared on the public media to praise one of the
candidates. It must also be shown that the assistance of the
Government servant was obtained either by the respondent or
his agent or by any other person with the consent of the
election candidate or his election agent. The averments made
in the petition do not show (i) who had obtained or procured
the assistance from Shri Beg; (ii) how he had obtained or
procured the assistance of Shri Beg; and (iii) how it was
said that it was with the consent of the respondent or his
election agent. Nor is it shown which, if any, facts went to
show that it was in furtherance of the prospects of the
respondent's election. In the absence of material facts and
particulars in regard to these aspects, the petition would
not disclose the cause of action. The High Court, was
therefore, perfectly justified in reaching this conclusion.
The petition also does not disclose the exact words used in
the speech; or the time and date of making such a speech.
Now, unless the relevant or offending passage from the
speech is quoted, it cannot be said what exactly Shri Beg
had said, and in what context, and whether it was calculated
to promote the election prospects of the respondent. Be that
as it may, inasmuch as these material facts and particulars
to show that the services of Shri Beg were procured by
someone with the consent of the respondent or his election
agent are not there, the averments pertaining to the charge
do not disclose a cause of action.