RAJEEV GUPTA, S/O LATE SRI BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Misc. Application No. 3020 of 2010)

(2.) THIS application (No. 3020 of 2010) has been moved on behalf of the returned candidate -Respondent No. 4 with the prayer that the election petition may be dismissed for non -compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act) by the election Petitioner alleging therein that the election petition was filed challenging the election of the Respondent No. 4 as Member of Parliament and for declaring the Petitioner to be an elected candidate. It is an admitted fact that the notice was issued to be Respondent No. 4 after filing of the amended election petition by the counsel for the election Petitioner, which was not served. Vide order dated 19 -8 -2009, this Court directed to serve the Respondent No. 4 apart from normal mode of service through publication and only after publication of notice in the newspaper, the Respondent No. 4 got the knowledge of filing of election petition. The Respondent No. 4 put in appearance before the Court and requested the Court for a direction to the Petitioner to serve a copy of the election petition to him. Consequently, the copy of election petition was served upon the counsel of the Respondent No. 4 but the same was signed by the counsel for the election Petitioner and not by the election Petitioner as provided under Sub -section (3) of Section 81 of the Act, which reads as under:

(3.) AGAINST this application, objection has been filed on behalf of the election Petitioner mainly on the ground that the election Petitioner has not violated any of the mandatory requirement as envisaged by Sub -section (3) of Section 81 of the Act and the Petitioner had filed copies of election petitions duly signed by the election Petitioner at the time of filing of the election petition itself. The alleged copy of the election petition was supplied to the Respondent No. 4 on the direction of the Court after the Respondent No. 4 had put in appearance before the Court. It has also been asserted that the Respondent No. 4 was served by a notice accompanying signed copy of election petition by registered post as well. It is also asserted in para 10 of the objection that the Petitioner had fully complied with the provision of Section 81(3) of the Act and had submitted to copies of the petition duly signed by the Petitioner in the Registry of this Court on 30 -5 -2009 along with 20 other copies of the petition duly signed by the Petitioner meant for service upon Respondent Nos. 4 to 23, who had contested the impugned election. It has been prayed that the application moved by the returned candidate -Respondent No. 4 is liable to be dismissed outright with costs as not maintainable.