ABDULLA B Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions arise for consideration in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:

(2.) The election petition was filed on 25-11-2010 within the permissible period of 30 days from 27-10-2010 the date on which the petitioner was declared elected. The petitioner filed a statement of recrimination on 7-2-2011 as provided under Section 99 of the Act challenging the rival claim of the first respondent. The first respondent thereafter filed an application on 21-1-2012 seeking to amend the election petition. The purpose of the amendment was to incorporate the name of one more voter in the election petition who had allegedly indulged in double voting. The first respondent called in aid Section 94 of the Act to sustain the plea for amendment of the election petition. The petitioner filed an objection to the application for amendment contending inter alia that it is impermissible under the Act. The petitioner contended that an amendment of an election petition could be resorted to only when the election is challenged on corrupt practice. Heavy reliance was placed on Section 93(4) of the Act which specifically allows particulars of corrupt practice to be amended. The Court below has allowed the application for amendment which is impugned by the petitioner in this original petition.

(3.) The petitioner strongly contends that the only enabling provision for amendment of the election petition is Section 93(4) of the Act. He asserted that the same deals with corrupt practice only and that Section 120 of the Act which enumerates corrupt practice does not take in double voting. The petitioner relied on the following decisions to highlight that an election contest is purely a statutory proceeding: