LAWS(ORI)-1996-7-26

AMAR PRASAD SATPATHY Vs. SITAKANTA MOHAPATRA

Decided On July 01, 1996
AMAR PRASAD SATPATHY Appellant
V/S
SITAKANTA MOHAPATRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of Election Petition No. 6 of 1995 which is pending disposal. Respondent No. 1 in the said election petition is the returned candidate who has filed this application praying to try issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as preliminary issues and dismiss the election petition on adjudication of those three issues.

(2.) General Election to Orissa State Legislative Assembly was held in March, 1995. The election petitioner and respondents 1 to 9 (parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their description in the election petition) contested the said election from 27, Barchana Assembly Constituency. The election petitioner polled 60,470 valid votes in his favour whereas respondent No. 1 polled 61,076 valid votes in his favour. The latter having polled the highest number of valid votes (61,076) in his favour, he was declared elected. Being felt aggrieved at the success of respondent No. 1 in the election, the election petition has been filed praying: (i) for inspection, scrutiny and recounting of all votes; (ii) to declare the election of respondent No. 1 void; and(iii) to declare the election petitioner to have been duly elected. One of the grounds of challenge is that respondent No. 1 is guilty of commission of corrupt practices. Notice being issued in the election petition, respondent No. 1 has filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the election petition.

(3.) On consideration of the respective pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed nine issues out of which the following three issues are relevant for the purpose of this application. Those three issues are :(1) Is the election petition as laid maintainable?(2) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) for noncompliance with provisions contained in Sections 81, or 82 or 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?(3) Is the election petition liable to be rejected in absence of any material facts with regard to individual items of allegations?