MICHAEL B FERNANDES Vs. C K JAFFER SHARIEF
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
February 14,2002
MICHAEL B.FEMANDES
Appellant
VERSUS
C.K.JAFFER SHARIEF
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED]B SUNDARA RAMI REDDY VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
DWIJENDRA LAL SEN GUPTA VS. HAREKRISHNA KONAR [REFERRED]
H R GOKHALE VS. BHARUCHA NOSHIR C [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
DEPUTY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER VS. NATHABHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-844] [REFERRED TO]ROSHAN LAL CHOUDHARY VS. NIRMALA DEVI & ORS [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIA VS. BIKRAM SINGH JARYAL [LAWS(HPH)-2014-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK TIWARI VS. DIVYARAJ SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-2-135] [REFERRED]
RETURNING OFFICER VS. PATHIREDDY RAJESHWAR REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-93] [REFERRED TO]
RETURNING OFFICER VS. BARNABAS NONGBAH [LAWS(MEGH)-2013-8-11] [REFERRED]
SANJAY JAGANNATHRAO JADHAV VS. KALE VIKRAM VASACNTRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ CHOUDHARY VS. KAILASH CHOUDHARY [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
M R GOPINATH VS. TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTION DISPUTES OF THE INSTITUTES OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN VS. ARUN SHOURIE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
R VIJAYA VS. P GANESHWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-558] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VEKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. DANISETTY BABU RAO [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-175] [REFERRED TO]
K KALAIMANI VS. MATHIARASAN S [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-247] [REFERRED TO]
IRSHAD FATMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-240] [REFERRED TO]
PREMCHAND GUDDU VS. CHINTAMANI MALVIYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-146] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT KATARE VS. O.P.S. BHADORIYA [LAWS(MPH)-2022-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S N TRIPATHI VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AS REGISTRAR [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. RAKHAL SARKAR [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. KEISHAM ROJEN KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
S MATHIARASAN VS. K KALAIMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-97] [REFERRED]
R NATARAJAN VS. M RAJASEKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-239] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH VS. BHURA RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ALIAS CHITTIBABU VS. ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
KANAGSABAPATHY SUNDARAM PILLAI VS. BANSI GAWALI [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-325] [REFERRED TO]
RAJABHAU (PARAG) PRAKASH WAJE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
ANITHA RADHAKRISHNAN VS. PR. MANOHARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI VALLABHAI PATEL VS. LALUBHAI PATEL [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-158] [REFERRED TO]
HEMAL JAISWAL VS. CHAKRADHAR [LAWS(CHH)-2014-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAM TUDU VS. SHAMBHUNATH MANDI [LAWS(CAL)-2002-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
RASAL SINGH VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2014-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR IMO SINGH VS. KHWAIRKAKPAM LOKEN SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA VS. SANTOSH AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ BANSILAL BIYANI VS. SUNIL MURLIDHAR CHAUDHARI [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA SINGH VS. DAURAM RATANKAR [LAWS(CHH)-2002-7-2] [FOLLOWED ON]
DR. RAJENDRA BABANRAO BHOSALE VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-181] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAJENDRA BABANRAO BHOSALE VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-181] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL SINGH VS. PRABHU NARAIN YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Pattanaik, J. -
(1.)This appeal is directed against the order dated 16th June, 2000, passed in Election Petition No. 29 of 1999. The aforesaid election petition had been filed by the appellant, challenging the validity of the election to the House of People from the Bangalore North Parliamentary Constituency, in which election, respondent No. 1 was declared to have been elected. In the election petition, the Election Commissioner, the Returning Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Karnataka had been arrayed as respondents 6, 7 and 8. Those respondents filed an application before the High Court of Karnataka for their deletion inter alia on the ground that under S. 82 of the Representation of the People Act, it has been clearly indicated that who should be the parties to an election petition and since they have been unnecessarily impleaded, they should be deleted. The High Court by the impugned judgment having deleted the said respondents 6, 7 and 8 from the array of parties, the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.)Mr. R. Venkataramani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the election petition having been filed, challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1, on the grounds contained in S. 100(1)(d)(iii)(iv) and non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules by the election machinery having been allowed, respondents 7 and 8 at least ought to have been held to be proper parties and there could not have been an order of deletion. According to the learned counsel, these respondents 7 and 8 having failed to conform to the mandatory guidelines enacted by the Election Commission of India, as contained in the hand book of the Returning Officer and those guidelines being treated as an integral part of the rules as well as Art. 324 of the Constitution, respondents 7 and 8 became proper parties to the election petition, in view of the nature of allegations pertaining to their official conduct. That being the position, the learned single Judge, who was in session of the matter, erroneously deleted the said respondents 7 and 8. Mr. Venkataramani however seriously does not challenge the order of deletion, so far as respondent No. 6 is concerned.
(3.)Mr. S. Muralidhar, the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission, on the other hand submitted that the question of parties to an election petition is concluded by two earlier decisions of this Court in case of Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others, (1982) 1 SCC 691 and B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India and others, (1991) 2 Suppl. SCC 624 and, therefore, the High Court was wholly justified in directing the deletion of those respondents from the array of parties and by such deletion, there has been no illegality requiring interference by this Court. Mr. Muralidhar, further contended that the Representation of the People Act being a full code by itself, prescribing the procedure to be followed and indicating the parties to be arrayed to an election petition and respondents 7 and 8, not coming within the ambit of the said provision, the High Court rightly deleted them and that order need not be interfered with by this Court. The learned counsel lastly urged that in view of the nature of allegations made, the person making those allegations is required to prove the same and, therefore, there is no justifiable reason, why the Election Officer or the Returning Officer should be permitted to be added as a party to the election petition.
(2.)Mr. R. Venkataramani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the election petition having been filed, challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1, on the grounds contained in S. 100(1)(d)(iii)(iv) and non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules by the election machinery having been allowed, respondents 7 and 8 at least ought to have been held to be proper parties and there could not have been an order of deletion. According to the learned counsel, these respondents 7 and 8 having failed to conform to the mandatory guidelines enacted by the Election Commission of India, as contained in the hand book of the Returning Officer and those guidelines being treated as an integral part of the rules as well as Art. 324 of the Constitution, respondents 7 and 8 became proper parties to the election petition, in view of the nature of allegations pertaining to their official conduct. That being the position, the learned single Judge, who was in session of the matter, erroneously deleted the said respondents 7 and 8. Mr. Venkataramani however seriously does not challenge the order of deletion, so far as respondent No. 6 is concerned.
(3.)Mr. S. Muralidhar, the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission, on the other hand submitted that the question of parties to an election petition is concluded by two earlier decisions of this Court in case of Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others, (1982) 1 SCC 691 and B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India and others, (1991) 2 Suppl. SCC 624 and, therefore, the High Court was wholly justified in directing the deletion of those respondents from the array of parties and by such deletion, there has been no illegality requiring interference by this Court. Mr. Muralidhar, further contended that the Representation of the People Act being a full code by itself, prescribing the procedure to be followed and indicating the parties to be arrayed to an election petition and respondents 7 and 8, not coming within the ambit of the said provision, the High Court rightly deleted them and that order need not be interfered with by this Court. The learned counsel lastly urged that in view of the nature of allegations made, the person making those allegations is required to prove the same and, therefore, there is no justifiable reason, why the Election Officer or the Returning Officer should be permitted to be added as a party to the election petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.