Inder Sen Israni, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent from Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 27, Navalgarh, the result of which was declared on March 1, 1990. The respondent has filed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition.
(2.) IT is submitted by Shri V.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel that an affidavit filed alongwith the petition does not disclose the source of information as required by relevant provisions of CPC. Therefore, in eye of law no affidavit has been filed and thus the provisions of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for brevity of 'Act, 1951') have not been complied with. It is also submitted that verification of the petition has not been done as required under Section 83 of the Act, 1951. It is also pointed out that material facts & material particulars as required under provisions of Section 83 of Act, 1951 have not been disclosed, therefore, no cause of action has arisen for filing this petition. It is further pointed out that copies of documents which formed integral part of the petition have been filed with the petition, but copies of such documents not been given to the respondents. The learned Counsel has lastly raised the objection regarding presentation of the election petition. It has been contended that the petition could have been presented only at Jaipur Bench and not at Jodhpur. Therefore on this ground also the petition is liable to be rejected. I have heard both the parties at length and also gone through the documents on record and also the law quoted at the bar.
(3.) IT has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner 'respondents') that an affidavit filed in support of the petition is no affidavit in eye of law &, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this account It may be stated that under provisions of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for brevity 'the Act, 1951') it is provided that "where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof." Thus, it is clear that the affidavit has to be filed as prescribed by the relevant provisions. In the conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Election Rules') it is provided under Rules 94 -A that "the affidavit referred in the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 83 shall be sworn before a magistrate of the first class or a notary or a commissioner of oaths and shall be in Form 25". It is thus, clear that the affidavit has to be in the Form No. 25. Parts (a) & (b) of the Form -25 regarding affidavit are as under: (a) that the statements made in paragraphs...of the accompanying election petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of...and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs...of the same petition and in paragraphs...of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge. (b) that the statement made in paragraphs...of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of...and the particular of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs...of the said petition and in paragraphs...of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information. Thus it is clear from the paras extracted above that there is no requirement for disclosing source of information and what is required is that the deponent should stale on oath that particulars of corrupt practice given in specified paragraphs of the petition or schedule annexed thereto are true to his information. The affidavit filed by petitioner has to be scrutinised keeping in view the provisions mentioned above. In para 2 of his affidavit, it has been mentioned that the corrupt practice of booth capturing and undue influence under Section 123(8) and Section 123(2) of the Representation of People Act are believed to be true to information. It is, therefore, clear that the requirements of Form -25 have been fully observed. It was not necessary for the petitioner to disclose the source of information as contended by learned Counsel. I am fortified in my opinion that the same view was expressed by the Apex Court in K.M. Mani etc. v. : [1979]1SCR701 While relying on Virrndra Kumar Saklech v. : [1972]3SCR955 , it was held that "the law in this respect is contained in the proviso to Section 83(1) which requires that the affidavit shall be in the "prescribed form". A cross reference to Rule 94 -A and Form 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, shows that it is enough for the election petitioner to say that the statements made in the relevant paragraphs were true to his "information". Similarly in Prabbu Narayan v. : [1975]3SCR552 , it was held in para 6 that the affidavit in support of an election petition need not itself disclose the source of information. In Krishan Chancier v. Rain Lal, 1973 S.C.C. 759, it was pointed out by the Apex Court that when there are specific Rules made under the Act which govern the election petitions, no other Rules are applicable. Nor is disclosure of the source of information a requisite under Order 6 Rules 15 and Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no relevance and do not support the submission that if the affidavit in support of the petition does not state the source of information on which the several allegations in the petition are based, those allegations cannot be deemed to have been made. Therefore, I do not find any force in this objection raised on behalf of the petition and the same is, therefore, rejected.;