GADAM ETE Vs. DUTER PADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Counsel, for the applicant/Respondent returned candidate. Also heard Mr. S. Shyam, learned Counsel for opposite party/election Petitioner.

(2.) "Dismiss this election petition at the threshold." Demands the applicant/Respondent returned candidate. He has filed the instant misc. case under Order 6, Rule 16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ' Code of Code of Civil Procedure in short) and Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'RP Act' in short). For him, there are 2 (two) preliminary grounds:

(3.) Applicant's learned Counsel, Mr. S.S. Dey, exhaustively deals with the relevant provisions under the RP Act and the amended Code of Civil Procedure. Reference has been made by him to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act which provides that the election petition should be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Code of Civil Procedure for verification of pleadings. Special reference has been made to the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that where the Petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Additionally, special reference has been made to provision under Section 83(2) of RP Act which provides that any schedule or annexure to the election petition should also be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. He then refers to Order 6, Rule 15 (4) of Code of Code of Civil Procedure which provides that a person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleading. In order to make his point, he takes me through pages 95 and 96 of the election petition. So also, pages 99-104 of the election petition "schedule of corrupt practice", which, according to the applicant's learned Counsel, are not supported by any mandatorily required verification. He again turns to pages 112-282 of the election petition "annexure to election petition", to convince me that they are without any verification. Reliance has been put by Mr. Dey, learned Counsel, on Narender Singh v. Malaram and Anr., 1999 8 SCC 198 and H.D. Raveena v. G. Puttuswamy, 1999 2 SCC 217.