SAXENA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is an elector of Pali Lok Sabha Constituency, has filed this election petition under sec. 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and challenged the election of respondent Shri Guman Mal Lodha, who has been declared elected as member of Parliament from Pali (Parliamentary Constituency No. 21) on 16. 06. 1991, on the ground of alleged corrupt practice described in para 3 of the petition and prayed that the impugned election be declared as void.
(2.) ON 6. 1. 92, Mr. Rajendra Mehta, Advocate, appeared for the respondent in the Court and accepted the notice along with the copy of the election petition. He was also supplied with another copy of the election petition by the Registry on 13. 1. 92. The respondent filed an application under Ss. 81, 83 r/w sec. 86 (1) of the Act and raised inter-alia the following preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this election petition :- i. That the copy of the election petition served on him is not a true and Correct copy of the original election petition nor it has been attested to be the true copy by the petitioner and, as such, the mandatory provisions of Sec. 81 of the Act have not been complied with; ii. That the copy of the audio cassette Annex. 6 described in sub para (3) of Para 3 of the election petition, which purports to form an integral part of the election petition, has not been furnished; iii. That the copies of petitioner's affidavit, which forms an integral part of the election petition, is not the true copy of the affidavit and the same does not bear the endorsement of its attestation and blank space has been left after writing sd/-; and iv. That none of the copies of the Annexs. 3 to 5, which also form integral part of the election petition, have not been duly signed and verified by the petitioner. The respondent has, therefore, prayed that this election petition be dismissed. The petitioner in his reply dt. 12. 11. 92 asserted that the copies of the election petition and the affidavit furnished to the respondent bear his signatures; that those are true and correct copies and that as such, provisions of Sec. 81 (3) have been sufficiently complied with. He, however, admitted that this election petition was filed on the last day of the expiry of limitation i. e. 31. 7. 91 and that the audio cassette Annex. 6, which was lying with the petitioner, was misplaced and that the same could not be submitted along with the election petition. He informed that he was separately submitting an amendment application for deletion of the relevant para in the election petition. He also' admitted that in para No. 3 (c) of the election petition, the date of the meetings held in Pali and various villages of the Parliamentary Constituency was not mentioned in the election petition. He, however, asserted that for such a technical objection the election petition cannot be dismissed. The respondent in his rejoinder dt. 25. 1. 93 reiterated that the audio cassette Annex. 6 and the affidavit in support of election petition, being integral parts of the election petition, non-supply of their true copies is a fatal defect warranting dismissal of the election petition. On 12. 11. 92, the petitioner also filed an amendment application under 0. 6; R. 17 CPC praying for deletion of para 3 (e) of the election petition. The respondent in his reply dt. 25. 1. 93 has vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the removal of fatal infirmities in the election petition by Way of amendment will cause substantial prejudice to him.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length on petitioner's amendment application as well as on the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondent regarding the maintainability of this election petition and perused the relevant record in extenso. In Re: Amendment Application : The petitioner vide para 3 (ee) of the election petition has pleaded that the respondent with his consent and with the assistance of his supporters/agents got convened various religious meetings in Pali and various villages in Parliamentary Constituency & that those meetings were addressed by Sadhvi Ritumbhara, wherein she used insulting words against muslims and requested the electorate to vote for the respondent in the name of and for Hindu religion. In para 3 (u), it has been pleaded that the audio cassettes (Annex. 6) containing speeches given by Sadhvi Ritumbhara were also played and distributed in respondent's election campaign. However, the dates of these meetings and the names of the villages were not mentioned. The petitioner now wants to delete the third line of para 3 (ee), wherein the dates of those meetings have been left blank and para 3 (u) pertaining to audio cassette (Annex. 6 ). Sec. 83 of the Act requires that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies, shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, 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 shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleadings. The proviso to this section clearly lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petitioner shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Sub section 2 of sec. 83 of the Act further requires that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. ;