PREM SHANKER VERMA Vs. HAJARILAL RAGHUWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No. 25/2005, an application under section 86 read with sections 81, 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), I.A. No. 26/2005, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') read with sections 86 and 87 of the Act for rejection of the petition and I. A. No. 27/2005, an application under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code read with sections 86 and 87 of the Act for striking out pleadings.

(2.) THE factual aspects need to be noted for the disposal of the applications are that petitioner Prem Shanker Verma and respondent Hajarilal Raghuwanshi amongst others contested the election for Seonimalwa Assembly Constituency, in M.P. In the election held in 2003 respondent, Hajarilal Raghuwanshi was declared elected on 4 -12 -2003. The petitioner who secured the next higher number of votes challenged the election of respondent by filing an election petition under section 80 of the Act on the ground of bribing the voters, giving gifts to them, exercising influence upon them and making appeal in the name of religion by the respondent, using vehicles for free transportation and for free conveyance of the voters, and booth capturing. The petitioner prayed that the election of respondent be declared void.

(3.) EARLIER I. A. No. 1/2005, an application under section 86(1) of the Act was filed by the respondent. By this application the respondent prayed for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that provisions of section 81 of the Act have not been complied with by the petitioner while serving the respondent with copy of the petition and annexures. It was stated in the application that the copies received by the respondent do not bear the signatures of the petitioner anywhere. Copy of petition served on the respondent has not been attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of petition. Similarly, the documents forming part of the petition as served on the respondent have not been attested to be true copies of the originals. Copies are simply photo -copies. It was, inter alia, stated in the application that the petitioner has not supplied the full and correct copy of the petition with all annexures to the respondent, therefore, the respondent is not in a position to file the reply to the petition. The respondent submitted that the election petition does not comply with the provisions of section 81(3) of the Act and is thus liable to be dismissed as mandated in section 86 of the Act.