LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-263

DELKAR MOHANBHAI SANJIBHAI Vs. PATEL NATUBHAI GOMANBHAI

Decided On March 19, 2010
DELKAR MOHANBHAI SANJIBHAI Appellant
V/S
PATEL NATUBHAI GOMANBHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order will dispose of Application No.4 of 2009, 5 of 2009 and 7 of 2009 together.

(2.) THE above numbered Election Petition has been filed to declare the Election of Respondent No.1 from the parliamentary constituency of UO3, Dadra & Nagar Haveli as void and to further declare that the Petitioner has obtained majority of valid votes and declared as elected in respect of parliamentary constituency of Dadra & Nagar Haveli UO3 in the 15th Loksabha Elections held on 30th April 2009. The Petitioner contested the Election as nominated candidate of Indian National Congress Party, whereas, the Respondent No.1 contested as nominated candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party. The ground on which the above declaration is sought is that the Respondent No.1 himself and his agent and other persons indulged in corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A) and 123(2) and 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 17th July 2009 in the above said Election Petition and service thereof on the concerned Respondents, the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.8 have filed the above mentioned Applications.

(3.) REVERTING to the grounds stated in the Application No.4/2009, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner was obliged to file at least 20 copies of the Election Petition when the Election Petition was presented for effecting service on ten Respondents by two different modes provided under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court in regard to the Election Petitions under the Act of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election Petition Rules'). It is stated that the Election Petition was lodged on 25th June 2009 when the concerned Officer made noting that the Office to accept for lodging along with ten copies. However, there is no indication that the Petitioner had in fact lodged ten copies along with the Election Petition on 25th June 2009. Even Paragraph 36B of the Petition does not specify as to how many number of spare copies have been supplied/furnished/tendered along with the Election Petition at the time of lodging the same. According to the Respondent No.1, no copies were supplied/furnished or tendered by the Petitioner at the time of lodging of the Election Petition. It is further stated that certain objections were raised by the Office and the same were removed on 26th June 2009. Moreover, ten copies of the Election Petition came to be tendered in the Office and accepted by the Officer on 30th June 2009 illegally and without authority of Law. For, once a Petition is filed and numbered, no addition or deletion thereto could be made without the permission of the Court. It is stated that the Respondent No.1, in all, received two copies of the Petition served through two different modes- one through courier service and another through RPAD. That goes to show that the Petitioner had not filed ten copies at the time of lodging the Petition, much less, twenty copies as was required to effect service on the ten Respondents in the Petition by two different modes as per the Election Petition Rules. It is further asserted that the Petition served on the Respondents did not contain attestation of the Petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the Petition. In Paragraph 2 of the Application, reference is made to Page Nos.47, 50, 65, 76, 79, 83, 86, 88, 104, 107, 110, 112, 114, 119, 121, 124, 126, 129, 132, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 169, 172, 174, 177, 179, 182, 184, 187, 189, 192, 194, 197, 199, 202, 204, 211, 213, 215, 248, 252, 258, 261, 263, 266, 268, 301, 305, 307, 309, 311, 313, 316, 353, 355, 357, 362, 365, 370, 404, 406, 408, 410, 412 of the Election Petition which according to the Respondent No.1 have not been attested by the Petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the Petition. It is stated that upon taking inspection of the original Election Petition on 18th August 2009, it was noticed that the above numbered pages wherein the Petitioner had done verification in respect of certain documents, but he did not attest the said pages under his own signature. According to the Respondent No.1, therefore, there was breach of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, entailing in dismissal of Election Petition under Section 86 of the Act of 1951.