PALLI, J. - (1.) MAHENDRA Kumar, petitioner, has filed this election petition agast in Bheem Raj. Elections were held on 11. 11. 1993. Bheem Raj respondent was declared elected from Aspur Assembly Constituency No. 136. The election has been challenged by way of this petition that the respondent had given wrong information in the nomination form with respect to his age by concealing the material fact. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent passed out the Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 1987 where his date of birth is entered as 10. 8. 1969. In short the entire case as projected in the petition is that the respondent was below the age of 25 years at the time of the filing of the nomination form and under Article 173 of the Constitution of India as well as for qualifying for the membership of the State Legislature. Under Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a candidate seeking such election is not duly qualified to contest if he is less than 25 years of age. This petition was presented in this Court on 3. 12. 1993/10. 12. 1993. Whereafter this Court issued notices to the respondent. After completion of service Mr. N. M. Lodha, Advocate put up his appearance on 21. 4. 1994 and sought time to file the written-statement for which the case was adjourned to 23. 5. 1994 when the malter come up on 23-5-1994 the respondent moved a petition raising preliminary objections for out-right dismissal of the petition under Section 83 read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner was, thus,called upon to put in the reply to the preliminary objections and in sequence of the order the petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 29. 6. 1994 to the preliminary objections.
(2.) IN the preliminary objections, the respondent has raised the following objections; - 1. That only one set of the election petition was served on the respondent. 2.That the annexures placed with the election petition are not legible. 3. That the petition was not in conformity with law as the verification made in support of Annexures 1 and 2 is not proper and the sources of these documents have not been disclosed. 4. That in the verification made in the election petition as well as on the Annexarures 1 and 2 the signatures of the petitioner do not appear on the verification meaning thereby that the annexures are not true and correct copies of the originals. 5. That the scrutiny of the nomination form was made after notice and information to the petitioner and no objection was raised at that time and now after the declaration of the result when the petitioner has lost the election, the election petition is not maintainable. 6.That the security has not been deposited as per the provisions of law. In the reply placed on record by the petitioner, it is stated that on 17. 1. 1994 the summons were ordered to be issued to the respondent to appear extra copies of the petition to be served on 14. 2. 1994. Counsel appearing for the petitioner furnished necessary on the respondent in accordance with the direction of the court as such there is no lacuna on the part of the petitioner in filing the extra sets of the petition and service of one set of the petition alongwith annexures is sufficient service. It is stated that assuming the document Annex. 3 is not legible, it is not a ground to reject the election petition. In respect of verification, it has been replied that the same is in conformity with law and the documents attached with the election petition are the true copies of the originals. The respondent has not denied that the documents Annexs,2 and 3 are not true copies or are false or fabricated all necessary documents have been properly signed and the verification is made in accordance with law and at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers the petitioner could hardly know that the date of birth being given in the declaration was not correct and there was no occasion to raise an objection at that time, The objections are stated to be carring no force and are aimed at delaying the proceedings. The respondent has further placed the rejoinder to the reply and what has been stated in the preliminary objection has been reiterated. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in order to support the preliminary objections has pressed only three points that the copies given are not correct according to the provisions laid lown in section 81 (3) and, thus there is lack of compliance. Second point raised is that there is no proper verification of the election petition as well as on the annexures and third that the security deposit was not in accordance with law. On the first point, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the copies were filed latter and as per the requirement of section 81 (3) which is mandatory and non-compliance of the same shall render the petition liable to be summarily dismissed in view of the provisions laid down under section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act and in support of this contention the decisions reported in Satya Narain vs. Dhuja Ram and others (1); Bhika Bhai vs. Lal Shanker and others F. A. Sapa Etc. Etc. vs. Singora and others (3) and Mohan Raj vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia and others (4) have been pressed into service. All these decisions deal with the requirement of spare copies, non- compliance and its effect. Their Lordships while examining the matter in the decision of Satya Narain (supra) have laid down that the requirement of section 81 (3) is mandatory and non-compliance results in the dismissal of the election petition. It was held that the right to challenge an election is a special right conferred under a self contained special law and the court will have to seek answer to the questions raised within the four corners of the Act and the powers of the court are circumscribed by its provisions. It is not to be equated with a plaint in a civil suit. The purpose behind the enclosing of the copies is to enable quick despatch of the notice with the contents of the allegationg for service on the respondents so that there is no delay in the trial at the very initial stage when the election petition is presented.
(3.) TO the similar effect are the observations contained in other decision i. e. in the case of Mohan Raj (supra), referred to above. The decision given in the case of Bhika Bhai (supra) deals with the point where the copy of the petition is not attested by the petitioner under his signatures and this court held that the provisions contained in section 81 (3) are mandatory and having not been complied the election petition was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner while replying to this objection has brought to my notice that on 17. 1. 1994 this court for the first time ordered the issuance of notice and in the order itself it is said that the petitioner if he has not already furnished the extra copies of the petition shall furnish the same and the office note aappeaing on the margin against this order is dated 18. 1. 1994 wherein it is recorded "by Regd. Post" (Notice issued to respondent with copy of the election petition with documents through District Judge, Dungarpur) and the second note again appears at S. No. 391 on that very date itself i. e. 18. 1. 1994 recording "notice issued to respondent with copy of petition with documents through Regd. Post A/d This would show that the petitioner supplied the copies with all promptness and in sequence of the order passed by this court and no time was left to be wasted in this respect. It reveals that the orders for the issuance of notices was given on 17. 1. 1994 and on 18. 1. 1994 i. e. on the very next day the notices had been issued by the office throught the District Judge, dungarpur as well as by registered post complete in all respects i. e. that the copy of the election petition as well as the documents. Yet there is a note dated 25. 1. 1994 stating that the one extra copy of election petition with summons has been filed today and summon to the respondent with copy through the District Judge, Dungarpur and dasti given to Shri N. N. Mathur, Advocate. This endorsement is dated 25. 1. 1994. The next date fixed was 17. 2. 1994 and the order of this date records that the notices issued in pursuance of the order dated 17. 1. 1994 have not been received after service or otherwise. Be awaited. ;