RAMESHWAR DAYAL ARALE Vs. MUNNA SINGH BHADORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the preliminary objection raised in I.A. No. I of 1990 on behalf of respondent No. 1 (returned candidate) to the maintainability of the petition. It would be appropriate to mention that although election petitioner's reply to the said application came on records on 19-11-1990, he had filed earlier I.A. Nos. II, III, IV and V of 1990 and his counsel, Shri S. P. Shrivastava, pressed the prayer for leave to amend the election petition. It may be pertinent to note also that in the instant petition, election of respondent No. 1 for M.P. Vidhan Sabha Constituency No. 11, Ater, has been challenged. He was declared elected on 28-2-1990 having secured 36, 427 votes. Petitioner secured 16, 274 votes and was placed next to him. Other candidates contesting the election secured votes ranging between 51 and 7, 403. They have been impleaded as respondents 2 to 13.

(2.) On 19-11-1990, Shri Shinde produced copies of the election-petition and annexures thereof which were furnished to him in Court on 7-9-1990 and submitted that the deficiencies in the copies served be noted as that was necessary for disposal of the contention raised in I.A. No. I/ 90 that the election-petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for short, the 'Act', for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 81(3). He contended that copies furnished were not "true copies" of the election-petition and as such, I was required to note the omissions and variations by comparing those with the original election-petition filed in the Court.

(3.) Defects were noticed in regard to two documents, the affidavit and Annexure P/2. At S. No. 11 of Annexure P/2 (captioned, "List of officials"), the name typed is "Ahibharan Singh, Tomar". In the copies, the first letter, "A", I found unintelligible and illegible though in the original, that I found clearly typed. In the main petition, reference is made to Annexure P/2 at para 4(b) and in that regard, it is stated that the Government officials whose names were set out in Annexure P/2 were the persons whose help and assistance, respondent No. 1 took in canvassing and influencing the voters to further the prospects of his election. In regard to the defects in the affidavit, Shri Shinde's overarching contention was that para-numbers of the petition, in regard to which varification was made in paras 1 and 2 of the affidavit, being left blank in the copies served, the entire copy of the affidavit was faulty. True, among other defects noted are changes made in the typed script of the original election-petition, not reflected in the copies. To wit - striking off the word "Schedule" and replacing that by the word "Annexure" in both paras 1 and 2, of the affidavit as also interpolating the words "knowledge and" in para 2 between the words "my" and "information". These defects are to be examined as elaborate arguments counsel advanced on this aspect of the plea of respondent No. 1 though I shall do well to put on record the fact that Shri Shinde had feebly complained also against want of some signature on some of the documents (annexures) on the footing mainly that the initials which appear thereon were not signatures of the election-petitioner. Shri Shinde cited Sharif-u-Din, AIR 1980 SC 303, to submit that those signatures could not in any event be accepted as signatures made in token of attestation of the true copy for being served on the respondent. Further hearing was adjourned as counsel were not ready with the law.