F A SAPA VAIVENGA SAIKAPTHIANGA ZALAWMA LALHUTHANGA Vs. SINGORA:ZONUNTHARA:HRANGTHASANGA:T ROZAMA:ROMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in all SLPS.

(2.) The two preliminary issues raised by the learned Judge hearing the election petitions were (i) whether the election petitions were in conformity with the requirements of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R. P. Act), and the Rules framed thereunder bv the Gauhati High Court and (ii) whether Rule 1 and the other related rules and notes thereto enabling the . filing of the Election Petition before the Stamp Reporter assigned to the election court by the learned Chief Justice were ultra vires Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 169 read with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R. P. Act. So far as the first objection was concerned, the returned candidates contended that the election petitions were photocopies and could not, therefore, be treated as election petitions as contemplated by law, the copies of petitions served on the returned candidates were not attested to be true copies of the original petitions as required by Section 81(3), the copies served on them with the annexures were not true copies of the original; the election petitions were not signed and verified in the manner laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the source of information had not been disclosed in the verification of the affidavit in Form 25 as required by R.94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Rules) and no schedule of material particulars of corrupt practice had been annexed to the affidavit purporting to be under Form 25. In regard to the second objection the contention was that the presentation of the election petitions before the Stamp Reporter was inconsistent with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R. P. Act and Article 329 of the Constitution inasmuch as the law requires that an election petition shall be presented to the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court overruled both the preliminary objections holding, in the case of the first, that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the relevant provisions and on the second point he ruled that the presentation of the election petition to the Stamp Reporter appointed or authorised under the Rules was presentation in accordance with the Rules and the same did not conflict with Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Thus both the preliminary objections stood rejected.

(3.) The returned candidates had applied under order VII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (the Code), for striking out certain averments from the memo of the election petitions on the ground of failure to disclose a cause of action. A prayer was also made for dismissal of the petitions on that ground. The learned Judge in the High Court rejected this contention observing that under the election law the High Court is empowered to permit amendment of the election petition with a view to amplifying the averments bearing on the question of corrupt practice which it considers necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the election dispute. In this view of the matter the learned Judge examined the averments of each paragraph in detail and directed the deletion or modification of certain paragraphs, the averments wherein were vague or bereft of necessary particulars. He directed that paragraphs 6, 9, 12, 13, 21, 22, 38 and 40 shall stand deleted whereas paragraphs 3, 4. 5, 8, 14 to 20 25 to 27, 30 to 37.39 and 45 of the petition giving rise to CA No. 179 of 1991 shall stand modified. All allegations against the election agent or other agents of the returned candidates were ordered to be struck off. In other words he directed that the allegations of corrupt practice shall be confined to the returned candidate only. Similar orders were passed in the other election petitions subject to the variation in number of paragraphs, etc, For convenience we will take the pleadings of C. A. No. 179/91 as representative since we are told that the averments in each election petition are identical except for some variations here and there. Thus the learned Judge rejected the preliminary objections and partly allowed the application for striking off the averments in the election petitions and partly permitted certain amendments to the election petitions. It is against the said order that the retu.rned candidates have approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.