- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 18, 1998 of the Madras High Court allowing the miscellaneous application (Original Application No. 298/98) filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 161 and Order 7 Rule 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') and thus holding that the election petition filed by the appellant under Section 100 (1)(b) and (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the 'Act') stands dismissed under Section 83(1) of the Act read with the Code. In the election petition appellant had challenged the election of the respondent to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) from the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly. 1. "16. Striking out pleadings. - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading - (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court." 2. " Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; ((d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
(2.) On September 16, 1997 Election Commission issued a notification calling upon the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Pondicherry to fill up the vacancy on the completion of the term of the appellant in the Rajya Sabha. The notification also stipulated the election schedule. By the same notification the Secretary, Pondicherry Legislative Assembly was appointed as Returning Officer for the election. On September 26, 1997 the Election Commission released the list of contesting candidates. These were the appellants belonging to the Indian National Congress (INC) and the respondent belonging to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). On October 23, 1997 election was held and results declared the same day. Out of the total electorate of 29 members of the Legislative Assembly 27 cast their votes. Respondents polled 15 votes, the appellant 12. On October 7, 1997 notification dated October 6, 1997 to this effect was published in the Government Gazette. On November 17, 1997 appellant filed the election petition in the High Court challenging the election of the respondent. He alleged that election of the respondent was vitiated due to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (1)(B)(b)3 and Section 100 (1)(d)4 of the Act, committed by the respondent, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent. 3. "123. Corrupt practices. - The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act;- (1) "Bribery, that is to say. - (A) .............. (B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward - (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, a candidate; or (c) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, of any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature." Explanation - For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duty entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78. (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent or the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electional right: Provided that - .................................. 4. "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion (a) ................................ (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) ....................... (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected - (i) ........................ (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agents, or (iii) ........................... (iv) ............................ the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied - (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the candidate or his election agent: (b) Omitted. (c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election, and (d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then the High Court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void."
(3.) The appellant alleged the following corupt practices committed by the respondent :- 1. Respondent was proposed by Mr. R. V. Janakiraman, Chief Minister belonging to DMK. For the second set of application the name of respondent was proposed by Mr. C. Jayakumar, Minister in the Government of Pondicherry. The proposals were seconded respectively by Mr. M. Kandaswamy, Deputy Speaker and Mr. K. Rajasekharan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister. All these four persons acted as agents for the respondent in the election. (para 6 of the election petition) 2. After the commencement of the election process on September 26, 1997 Government of Pondicherry announced appointment of Chairmen for five State owned corporations. It was published in the daily newspaper Daily Jhanthi on September 27, 1997. None of the nominees was from Congress. This amounted to exercise of undue influence to secure the votes of the MLAs, particularly the MLAs who were nominated as Chairmen. The Government of Pondicherry was headed by Mr. R. V. Janakiraman, who acted as agent of the respondent. Announcement of the notification materially affected the result of the election. (para 11 of the election petition) 3. After the date of the election was fixed for October 3, 1997 the appellant wanted to meet all the MLAs at Pondicherry. However, MLAs belonging to DMK, Tamil Manila Congress, Communist Party of India, Pattali Makkal Katchi, Janata Dal and also an independent MLA were not available in Pondicherry. The MLAs were taken out of Pondicherry, entertained there and were brought back to Pondicherry on October 2, 1997. Similarly except two Ministers, Mr. S. P. Sivakumar and Mr. R. Viswanathan, no other Minister was available in Pondicherry. The Chief Minister Mr. R. V. Janakiraman took the MLAs and kept them at Hotel Ashok, Pondicherry by providing all facilities to them from September 25, 1997 to September 27, 1997. Thereafter the MLAs were shifted to Mahabalipuram and entertained in five star hotels. Complaint to this effect was sent by the appellant to the Election Commission on October 2, 1997. (para 7 of the election petition). 4. Mr. C. Jayakumar, who had proposed the name of the respondent, took Mr. Kandaswamy and Mr. K. Rajasekharan to Goa with a view to influence them. They were taken there in a Government vehicle bearing registration No. PY-01-C-2345 and PY-01-D-9289 on September 27, 1998, returning on October 1, 1997. In Goa all the three stayed in Government Guest House. Entire expenses for their travel and stay at Goa were met by the Government of Pondicherry. Both Mr. Kandaswamy and Mr. Rajasekharan were taken to Goa and entertained there as a reward for voting in favour of the respondent. They were influenced to cast their votes in favour of the respondent. This conduct of Mr. C. Jayakumar, who was agent of the respondent, amounted to corrupt practice. Both Mr. C. Jayakumar and Mr. R. V. Janakiraman, the Chief Minister, did the corrupt practice with the consent of the respondent, which materially affected the election result in so far as it concerned the respondent. 5. Mr. N. Keshavan, another agent of the respondent, also influenced Mr. R. Rajaraman, Janata Dal MLA. Mr. N. Keshavan, MLA is the Government whip belonging to DMK. Mr. R. Rajaraman was kept at Ashok Hotel at Pondicherry and then taken to Kovalam, Chengleput District, then to Tirupati in a Government vehicle bearing registration No. PY-01-6667 and then brought back to Pondicherry on October 2, 1997. Entire expenses of this trip were borne by the Government of Pondicherry headed by Mr. R. V. Janakiraman an agent of the respondent.;