MAJOR KRISHNA MOHINI Vs. RAM PRATAP CHANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Major Krishna Mohini has filed this election petition calling in question the election of Shri Ram Partap Chandel respondent to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the grounds of corrupt practices and has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the election as being void. This election petition was filed on 30th July, 1977, in the Registry and was put up before the Court on 12th August, 1977.

(2.) The respondent after service of the notice appeared in the Court on 1st August, 1977. He was granted time to file his written statement by 5ih September, 1977, but on that date instead of filing the complete written statement, he filed O. M. P. 126 of 1977 in which it was alleged that he was supplied the copy of the petition only on that date but the same was not accompanied by any schedule or annexure. Further that there was reference to various annexures in the petition which showed that annexures are enclosed with the election petition. Further that every page of the petition has not been attested to be true copy. The petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections 81 (3) and 83 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (shortly called the Act), and as such the election petition deserves to be dismissed under section 86 of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner in reply to this O. M. P. pleaded in her preliminary objections that the application filed by the respondent is frivolous and against the letter and spirit of section 86 of the Act and the motive behind this application was to delay the expeditious disposal of the petition. The respondent bad failed to file the written statement as directed and as such this application should be dismissed and that he should be debarred from filing the written statement for his culpable conduct. It was averred on merits that the election petition as presented was in perfect order and fully complied with the requirements of law. It was admitted that every page of the election petition had not been attested to be true copy. The copy supplied to the respondent had been attested at the end under the signatures of the petitioner to be a true copy of the petition and every page of it again bore the signature of the petitioner in token of its being a true copy of the original. It was averred that respondent had not disclosed as to how there was no compliance with the requirements of sections 81 (3) and 83 (2) of the Act. The particulars of corrupt practices are fully described in the petition, wherefrom the respondent can fully understand the charge even without looking to the documents annexed to the petition. The election petition is complete even without the annexures filed therewith. Annexures to the election petition are merely documents and not part of the petition. These documents are merely evidence in the case to lend support to the petition. 7 hey are in no sense integral part of the averments of the petition. The respondent is not entitled to their copies as of right, 5. No regular issues were framed. However, the parties argued the points raised in this O. M. P. The points which have been argued may be set down as: Whether the non -supply of the copies of the annexures to the election petition to the respondent is fatal to the petition, and, whether the non -attestation of each page of the petition is fatal so as to entail in dismissal of the petition?