Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishor Uttamrao Gajbhiye, filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of Dr. Nitin Kashinath Raut (respondent no.6) from the 57-North Nagpur (S.C.) Legislative Assembly Constituency in the Maharashtra State Assembly elections held in 2014. The petitioner alleged various corrupt practices including bribery, undue influence, and misuse of official machinery by the returned candidate. The respondents, particularly the returned candidate, filed applications for dismissal of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, contending that the petition lacked material facts, particulars, and proper verification. The court examined the petition and found that the allegations were vague and general, without specific instances, names, or dates. The verification was also found to be defective as it did not comply with the requirements of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. The court held that the petition did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Election Petition - Material Facts - Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. Failure to disclose material facts regarding alleged corrupt practices renders the petition liable to be rejected as not disclosing a cause of action. The court held that vague and general allegations without specific instances do not constitute material facts. (Paras 10-15) B) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Particulars - Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Allegations of corrupt practice must be supported by full particulars, including names of parties, dates, and details of the alleged practice. The petition failed to provide particulars of bribery, undue influence, or misuse of official machinery. Held that without particulars, the petition is liable to be struck out. (Paras 16-20) C) Election Law - Verification - Section 83(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The verification of an election petition must be in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Defective verification cannot be cured after the expiry of the limitation period for filing the petition. The court found the verification to be defective and not in compliance with Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for lack of material facts, particulars, and proper verification.
Final Decision
The election petition is dismissed with costs for non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Election petition must contain concise statement of material facts
- full particulars of corrupt practices
- and be verified in the manner prescribed by CPC. Non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 leads to dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Defect in verification cannot be cured after expiry of limitation period.
