Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manohar Dattatraya Bhadane, filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondents 1 to 6 as councillors of the Dhule Municipal Corporation. The petition was filed in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act. The court examined the petition and found that the petitioner had not furnished sufficient copies of the election petition as required under Section 81(3) of the Act. Only one copy was supplied, whereas the Act requires that a copy of the petition be served on each respondent. Additionally, the petitioner failed to deposit the security for costs as mandated by Section 117 of the Act. The court held that these requirements are mandatory and non-compliance constitutes a defect of substantial character. Consequently, the court dismissed the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act for non-compliance with Sections 81(3) and 117. The court did not proceed to examine the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Election Petition - Dismissal for Non-Compliance - Sections 81(3), 86, 117 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner failed to furnish sufficient number of copies of the election petition as required under Section 81(3) and also failed to deposit the security for costs under Section 117. The court held that these are mandatory provisions and non-compliance is a defect of substantial character, warranting dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1). (Paras 1-10) B) Election Law - Copy of Election Petition - Requirement of Attested Copies - Section 81(3) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner supplied only one copy of the election petition instead of the required number of copies for each respondent. The court held that the requirement of furnishing copies is mandatory and failure to do so renders the petition liable to be dismissed. (Paras 3-6) C) Election Law - Security for Costs - Deposit Requirement - Section 117 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner did not deposit the security for costs as required by Section 117. The court held that this is a mandatory condition and non-compliance is fatal to the petition. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) and Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Final Decision
The election petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 81(3) and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Law Points
- Election petition
- Dismissal for non-compliance
- Section 81(3) Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Section 117 Representation of the People Act
- Copy of election petition
- Security for costs
- Mandatory provisions
- Defect of substantial character
