RAMASHANKER PARMANAND Vs. JUGALKISHORE RAMASAHAYA BAJAJ
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JUGALKISHORE RAMASAHAYA BAJAJ
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS election petition was filed by the petitioner Ramshanker challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Jugalkishore who was elected from a constituency known as "hatta 162" constituency of the Vidhan Sabha of Madhya Pradesh. In the election which took place on 17-2-1967, in all fifteen candidates including the petitioner had taken part. The petitioner and the first ten respondents contested the election while respondents 11 to 14 withdrew their candidature after the acceptance of their nomination papers within the time allowed for such withdrawal. The election of the first respondent is challenged on the ground that he resorted to the corrupt practice described in Section 123 (5) of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act.) The particulars of the said corrupt practice have been specified in paragraphs 6 to 17 of the peti- tion, which, briefly stated, consisted of procuring and hiring vehicles for conveyance of the voters to the different polling stations and the vehicles procured or hired were used for the said purpose on the date of Voting.
(2.) IN Paragraph 4 of the petition it was averred that annexed to the petition and as part thereof is annexure A showing the number of votes obtained by each of the candidates who contested at the poll. The petition referred to annexure (2) and annexure (3) also. Annexure (2) is a schedule showing the names of persons who worked for the returned candidate. Annexure (3) is the schedule showing the names of electors who were carried In the vehicles for casting their votes. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioner and is stated so in paragraph 8 of the application for amendment of the petition that by inadvertence copies of the said three annexures (A), (2) and (3) were not given for being served on the respondents. It is averred in the said amendment that copies supplied to the respondents were copies of the petition minus the said annexures.
(3.) THE first respondent in his written-statement raised a preliminary objection to the effect that in paragraphs 4, 16 and 17 of the petition reference is made by the petitioner to annexures (A), (2) and (3) and the petitioner himself states that these annexures are parts of the election petition but in spite of this the petitioner did not file copies of these annexures along with the copies of the petition as required by Section 81 (3) of the Act. It is pleaded that as there were fourteen respondents in the petition, the petitioner was bound to file fourteen copies of the entire petition including the said annexures. It is urged that as there was noncompliance of Section 81 (3), the petition should be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.