Case Note & Summary
In this election petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged the election of the respondent from the Gondia constituency on allegations of corrupt practices, primarily exceeding the prescribed election expense limit. The petitioner alleged extensive undisclosed expenditure: use of helicopters hired from GVK Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad and OSS Air Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, along with construction of helipads; newspaper advertisements costing Rs.4,04,498; and hiring of 356 buses from MSRTC for a rally addressed by Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Sharad Pawar on April 10, 2009. The petitioner contended that the respondent did not include these expenses in his election expenditure returns, made false claims that the expenses were borne by the Nationalist Congress Party, and gave evasive replies to notices from the Returning Officer. The booking of buses was allegedly done in the names of 106 individuals by the respondent's election agent and associates, and the expenses materially affected the election result by swaying a large section of the electorate. The respondent filed a written statement and applications Exh.10 and 22 raising preliminary objections to maintainability. The objections included: lack of material facts and particulars for the corrupt practice ground, failure to plead how the corrupt practices materially affected the result, non-filing of a proper affidavit, defective verification and attestation of annexures and copies, non-production of a video cassette, and non-disclosure of any cause of action in paragraphs 13 to 31 of the petition. The Court framed issues, recasted some, and directed that Issues (ii) and (ii-A) be tried as preliminary issues. During the hearing, the respondent filed additional submissions, and the petitioner filed Exh.24 seeking leave to cure defects. After hearing arguments, the Court reserved judgment. The judgment was pronounced on 29th April 2010, but the provided text ends before recording the findings and decision on the preliminary issues, leaving the final outcome unknown.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Maintainability - Compliance with Sections 81(1) and 81(3) - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 81, 86 - The respondent raised preliminary objection that the election petition was not presented in compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 81(1) and (3), specifically regarding true copy of petition and annexures served on the returned candidate. The Court framed Issue No. (i) and listed it for hearing as a preliminary issue (Paras 2-4). B) Election Law - Pleadings - Material Facts and Particulars - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 83(1)(a) and (b), 83(2) - The respondent contended that the election petition did not contain material facts and particulars necessary to constitute a cause of action for corrupt practice, particularly regarding exceeding election expenses, and sought rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Issue No. (ii) was recasted and tried as a preliminary issue (Paras 2-3). C) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Exceeding Election Expenses - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 77, 123(6) - The petitioner alleged that the respondent exceeded the prescribed election expense limit by incurring undisclosed expenditure on helicopters, advertisements, and rallies. The respondent argued that these allegations lacked material facts and particulars. The Court examined the pleadings in Para 11 of the election petition (Paras 8-9). D) Election Law - Affidavit Requirement - Corrupt Practice Allegations - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(6), 83(2) - The respondent objected that the affidavit giving material particulars of corrupt practice was not filed in accordance with the mandatory requirement. The Court considered this as part of the preliminary issues (Paras 6(c), 2). E) Election Law - Verification of Annexures - True Copy Requirement - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81 - The respondent argued that the annexures to the election petition were not verified in accordance with law and that the copies served were not attested as true copies. The Court heard these objections alongside other preliminary issues (Paras 6(e)-(f)). F) Election Law - Production of Evidence - Video Cassette - The respondent objected that the video cassette relied upon in the petition was not made part of the petition and not produced. The Court considered this objection in the hearing on preliminary issues (Para 6(g)). G) Election Law - Pleadings - Striking Off Pleadings - Non-disclosure of Cause of Action - The respondent sought to strike off paragraphs 13 to 31 of the election petition on the ground that they did not disclose any ground for setting aside the election and did not plead material effect on the result. Issue No. (ii-A) was framed as a preliminary issue (Paras 6(i), 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition is maintainable despite objections of non-compliance with Sections 81(1), 81(3), 83(1)(a), 83(1)(b) and 83(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether certain paragraphs lack cause of action and should be struck off
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with Sections 81(1) and 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 for presentation of election petition
- requirement of material facts and particulars under Section 83(1)(a) and (b) for corrupt practice allegations
- necessity of affidavit under Section 83(2) for corrupt practice
- true copy and verification of annexures
- striking off pleadings for non-disclosure of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
