Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Budhaji Borkar, filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of Narayan Tatu Rane from the Kudal Assembly Constituency to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had submitted a notarized affidavit along with his nomination papers. The petition was filed on 7 December 2009. On 11 January 2010, the court noted that the petitioner had not furnished the required number of copies of the petition to the respondent as mandated by Section 81(3) of the Act. The court granted time to the petitioner to comply. Subsequently, on 8 February 2010, the petitioner was absent, and the court again granted time. On 22 March 2010, the petitioner was absent, and the court directed the office to issue notice to the petitioner. On 26 April 2010, the petitioner appeared and sought time to furnish copies, which was granted. On 7 June 2010, the petitioner was absent, and the court directed the matter to be listed for dismissal. On 6 August 2010, the petitioner was absent. The court held that the requirement under Section 81(3) to furnish copies is mandatory and non-compliance leads to dismissal under Section 86(1). The court also noted that the petitioner had not prosecuted the petition diligently. Consequently, the court dismissed the election petition for non-compliance with Section 81(3) and for want of prosecution.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Election Petition - Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Dismissal - The petitioner failed to furnish the required number of copies of the election petition to the respondent, despite being granted time. The court held that the requirement under Section 81(3) is mandatory and non-compliance leads to dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1) of the Act. (Paras 1-6) B) Election Law - Want of Prosecution - Dismissal - The petitioner remained absent on multiple hearings and failed to comply with court orders to furnish copies. The court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution as well as for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requiring the petitioner to furnish as many copies of the petition as there are respondents.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the election petition for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and for want of prosecution.
Law Points
- Election petition
- non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- mandatory requirement of copies
- no discretion to condone defect
