MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. BAIDYANATH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY our Order dated Nov. 29, 1983 we had, allowed the appeal. We now proceed, to give the reasons for the said Order.

(2.) THIS election appeal is directed against an interlocutory Order dated 7/01/1983 passed by the Patna High Court overruling a preliminary objection taken by the appellant (elected candidate) that the election petition of the respondent (election petitioner) should be dismissed straightway under the provisions of Section 9.6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - as amended up-to-date - (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(3.) THE learned Judge of the High Court found as a. fact that a large number of mistakes were there in the copy of the election petition supplied to the appellant but as they were of a superficial and insignificant nature bordering (a clerical or typing mistakes, on the whole there was a substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the Act. THE learned Judge has entered into a detailed discussion of' the various decisions of this. Court and also of High Courts and has correctly held that the provisions of Section 81 (3) are mandatory and if the court finds that they have not been complied with it has no alternative but to dismiss the election petition straightway. Unfortunately, however, in the process of applying the principles laid down by this Court he has completely glossed over the nature of the mistakes by describing them as merely clerical or typing ones. On a perusal of the aforesaid mistakes (listed at pp. 64-65 of the Paperbook) they do not appear to be so. Section 81 (3) of the Act runs thus :