K.RAMASWAMY - (1.) SINCE the question involved is common to all the appeals, they are disposed of together.
(2.) THE first appeal, viz., C.A. No. 6359 of 1994 arises from the judgment dated 30/08/1994 of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made in Election Petition No. 6 of 1994. THE appellant's nomination from Constituency No. 1, viz., Rajasmand, reserved for Scheduled Castes for 10th Legislative Assembly of the Rajasthan State was rejected on the ground that appellant does not belong to Scheduled Caste. THE respondent's election, after poll, was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the respondent had committed corrupt practices. After service of the notices, the respondent raised preliminary objections contending, inter alia that copy of the notice together with the affidavit in support of the election petition, i.e., Annexures 5 and 6, served on him, did not contain the verification by the notary; hence the election petition was not maintainable in accordance with Section 83 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act'). THE objections found favour with the High Court which accordingly dismissed the election petition by the impugned order dated 30/08/1994. In C. A. No. 8080 of 1994, elections to the Assembly Constituency No. 152, viz., Sahada in the Rajasthan State were held on November 11, and respondent was declared elected on 28/11/1993. The appellant, after he lost the election, filed Election Petition No. 4 of the 1994 challenging election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by him. Similar to the case of Mrs. Shipra, copy of the affidavit filed in support of the election petition supplied to the respondent, did not contain the verification by the notary. When objection in that regard was raised by the respondent, the learned single Judge by judgment dated 22/09/1994 dismissed the election petition. In C. A. No. 6635 of 1995, elections were held to the Assembly Constituency No. 160, viz., Raipur in Pali District for 10th legislative Assembly of the Rajasthan State. The appellant had contested the elections against the respondent who was declared elected on 28/11/1993. The appellant, after he lost the election, filed Election Petition No. 9 of 1994 challenging the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices imputed to have been committed by the respondent. Similar to earlier appeals, the copy of the affidavit along with the election petition to the respondent admittedly did not contain verification by the notary. When objection in that regard was raised by the respondent, the learned single Judge by impugned judgment dated 26/05/1995 upheld the objection and dismissed the election petition.
(3.) IN Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1993, the respondent was declared elected to the Lok Sabha from the Parliamentary Constituency of Mandsaur in Madhy Pradesh. The appellant, an elector, filed Election Petition No. 9 of 1991 challenging the election of the respondent imputing corrupt practices to have been committed by him. The copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent did not contain the verification by the notary or Oath Commissioner. When preliminary objection was raised by the respondent, the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the same and dismissed the election petition. Thus in all the appeals, the only question that arises for consideration is : whether the copy of the election petition accompanied by supporting affidavit served on the respective respondent along with Form 25 prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for short, the 'Rules') without attestation part duly verified by the District Magistrate/Notary/Oath Commissioner can be said to be "true and correct copy" of the election petition as envisaged in Section 81 (3) of the Act ? An election petition calling any election question, presented under Section 81 (1) of the Act, shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies, set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged therein, including "as full a statement as possible" of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and the election petitioner shall sign the petition and verify in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the verification of the pleadings. Sub-section (3) of Section 81 envisages that "(E)very election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the election petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be "true copy of the petition". Indisputedly, requisite number of copies of the election petition accompanied by the summons were attested by the appellant under her own signature to be true copy. The copy supplied to the respondent admittedly did not bear the attestation part. Rule 94-A of the Rules provides that the affidavit containing allegations of corrupt practices shall be in the prescribed form, viz., Form 25 which enjoins accompaniment of solemn affidavit to be duly sworn by the election petitioner duly verifying correctness of alleged corrupt practice mentioned in various paragraphs of the election petition and attestation by District Magistrate/Notary/Oath Commissioner. The copy supplied to the respondent admittedly did not contain such a verification by the Notary who had attested the original affidavit filed along with election petition certifying it to be a true copy.;