SHIVAJIRAO BALWANTRAO PATIL Vs. VILASRAO DEGLOJIRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed on 3.2.1996 on behalf of the returned candidate (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') whose election is challenged by the Respondent herein who is the election Petitioner, for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 ( for short, the R. P. Act), for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81 (3) and 83 of the R. P. Act and Order 6 Rule 16 & Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code), by way of preliminary objections.

(2.) THE election petition is filed on 25.4.1995 for setting aside the election of the applicant from "206 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Latur Constituency" inter alia alleging that the election is void or illegal since the applicant committed corrupt practices.

(3.) THE applicant submits that he is put to disadvantageous position and has made to suffer by the above said details which could not be verified by the applicant. THE election petition must, therefore, be dismissed in limine under Section 86 for not following the mandatory provisions contained in Section 83 (3) of the R. P. Act. In this context, it is submitted by the applicant that it is not part of the duty of the applicant i. e. the respondent in election petition to wade through the entire record in order to find out which is the correct copy. THE copy supplied to the applicant is found to be incorrect. In the absence of stamped endorsement on the copy of the applicant it is not possible for him to know whether the affidavit really was sworn in and whether if so before whom it was sworn in and on what date. THErefore, the copy of the election petition is not in conformity with section 81 (3) of the R. P. Act. This omission is of vital nature which is likely to prejudice the applicant. THErefore, the applicant submits that his objection deserves to be upheld and the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs on this ground alone. THE applicant relies on the decided cases in support of his contentions, namely; (l) Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati and others (AIR 1992 Bom 227), (2) Iqbal Singh v. Avtar Singh and others (AIR 1993 PH 314) (3) Boota Singh v. Sher Singh (AIR 1994 PH 32), (4) Dr. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shri Shanti Lal (AIR 1995 Raj 50) and (5) Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav and others (AIR 1984 SC 305) and (6) A. Madan Mohan v. Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara (AIR 1984 SC 871 ).