CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR Vs. DAYANAND RAYU MANDRAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Election Petitioners are the Appellants herein.

(2.) By reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 18-7-2003, the high Court dismissed the election petitions at the threshold inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) the copy of the Election Petition supplied to the first Respondent was not the true copy of the original; (ii) enough number of true copies were not filed with the election petition by the Election Petitioners.

(3.) For the purpose of proper appreciation of the question involved in these appeals, we may notice the following facts: the election petitions were filed on 16-7-2002. The main contention raised therein by the Appellants herein was disqualification of the elected candidate in terms of Article 191 (l) (a) of the Constitution of India, as alleged, in civil Appeal No. 6622 of 2003, the First Respondent was the Chairman of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board, while in Civil Appeal No. 6750 of 2003, the First Respondent was the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled caste and Other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 a statutory authority and a company respectively pver which the State of Goa has a complete control. A Form as contained. in Form No. 7 was filled in by the Office, question No. 3 whereof relates as to whether copies of the Petition and accompanying papers are also supplied for being made available to the Respondent and, if the sets of these copies are duly attested by the Petitioner under his own signature as true copy The Assistant Registrar made an endorsement therein (evidently upon scrutinizing the records) that there was 'no defect'. Question No. 19 to the effect "any other objection raised by the Officer" in the said Examination Form was also answered in the negative.