A. Madan Mohan Vs. Kalavakunta
Chandrasekhara  INSC 29 (14 February 1984)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1984 AIR 871 1984 SCR (2) 894 1984
SCC (2) 288 1984 SCALE (1)294
CITATOR INFO :
E&F 1990 SC 924 (33)
Representation of the People Act, 1951;
Sections 81, 82 and 86-Schedules and
annexures to election petition not served on the opposite party-Failure-
Whether renders the petition liable to be rejected in limine.
The respondent filed an election petition in
the High Court alleging that the returned candidate (petitioner herein) had
committed corrupt practices which rendered his election void. The returned
candidate made an application stating that the respondent had committed breach
of the mandatory provisions of section 81 (3) in that with the copy of the
election petition served on him, copies of documents and schedules which formed
an integral part of the election petition, had not been enclosed and that for
this reason the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under
section 86. The High Court dismissed his application. In the special leave
petition the returned candidate has urged the same argument advanced by him
before the High Court.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD: There is no requirement of law that the
documents or schedules to the election petition should also be served on the
candidate because if they were filed in Court it is always open to the returned
candidate to inspect them and find out the allegations made in the petition.
Documents or schedules do not form an integral part of the election petition.
[897E-F] In the instant case all that was necessary to be done by the election
petitioner had been done. The election petition was accompanied by as many
copies as there were respondents. It was duly verified and copies thereof were
accompanied by necessary schedules containing the details of corrupt practices
and the schedules were also signed by the petitioner. [897E-F] 895 Sahodrabai
Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [1968 3 SCR and M. V. Hande,  2 SCC 473, held
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 11868 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 16th
July, 1983 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Application No. 53 of 83.
Soli J. Sorabjee, V.R. Reddy, K. Rajendra
Chowdhary and K. Shivraj Chowdhary for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. This petition for special leave is directed against an
interlocutory Order dated July 16, 1983 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
rejecting the application of the petitioner for dismissing the election
petition of the respondent in limine under s. 86 of the Representation of the
People Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'.) The petition arises out of
an election to the Siddipets Assembly Constituency in Andhra Pradesh which took
place on January 5, 1983. The petitioner was declared elected to the said
Assembly. The respondent filed an election petition in the High Court alleging
certain corrupt practices.
The short point for consideration before us
is as to whether or not the election petition was liable to be dismissed in
limine under s. 86 of the Act as the copies of the documents and schedules,
which formed an integral part of the election petition, were not supplied to
the petitioner which amounted to a clear breach of the mandatory provisions
contained in s. 81 (3) of the Act.
The High Court after hearing both the parties
dismissed the application of the petitioner for throwing out the election
petition of the respondent in limine We have heard counsel for the parties at
length and it seems to us that the matter is no longer res integra and is
covered by a decision of this Court is Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar (1)
to which we shall refer hereafter.
896 On the findings of the High Court three
facts are clearly proved:
(a) that when the election petition was
filed, it was accompanied by as many copies as were the respondents, (b) that
the election petition was duly verified and the copies thereof were accompanied
by the necessary schedules containing the details of corrupt practices, and (c)
that the schedules or the annexures to the petition were also signed by the
election petitioner (respondent).
The only complaint of the petitioner was that
the copy of the election petition served on him was not accompanied by copies
of the schedules and hence there was a clear breach of the provisions of s. 81
(3) of the Act. Section 81(3) may be extracted thus:
"81. Presentation of petitions- XX XX XX
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as
there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and every such copy shall be
attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the
petition." An analysis of the above reveals- (a) that the petition should
be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents, (b) that every such
copy should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true
copy of the petition.
It is not disputed in this case that both
these conditions were fully satisfied.
Section 83 of the Act contains four
requirements, viz., (a) that the election petition shall contain a concise
statement of the material facts relied upon by the petitioner, (b) that the
petitioner should set forth the full particulars of the corrupt practices
alleged, 897 (c) that the petition should be signed by the petitioner and
verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and where a
corrupt practice is alleged the petition should also be accompanied by an
affidavit in the prescribed form, giving the particulars of the corrupt
practice, and (d) any schedule or annexure to the petition should also be
signed and verified by the petitioner.
These conditions have also been fulfilled in
the present case.
The counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that as the schedules and other documents formed an integral part of
the petition, the same should have been served on the petitioner (respondent in
the High Court) before it could be said that the provisions of ss. 81 and 82 of
the Act had been complied with. It was further argued that in the absence of
such a compliance, the petition was liable to be rejected in limine under s. 86
of the Act. We are, however, unable to agree with this contention which does
not at all flow from the plain and simple requirements of ss. 81 and 82. As
indicated above, all that was necessary was done in this case and there was no
requirement that the documents or the schedules should also have been served on
the petitioner because if they were filed in the Court it was always open to
the petitioner to inspect them and find out the allegations made in the
petition. We are unable to hold that the documents or the schedules formed an
integral part of the petition.
An identical question came up for
consideration before this Court in Sahodrabai's case (supra) where while
repelling a similar argument the following observations were made:
"The only provision to which our
attention has been drawn is sub-s. (3) of s. 81 and sub-s. (2) of s.
83. The first provides that every election
petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are
respondents mentioned in the petition and that every such copy shall be an
authenticated true copy.
The words used here are only "the
election petition." There is no mention of any document accompanying the
election petition.........Assistance is however taken from the provisions of
sub-s. (2) of s. 83 which provides that any schedule or any annexure to the 898
petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner
as the petition. It is contended that since the pamphlet was an annexure to the
petition it was not only necessary to sign and verify it, but that it should
have been treated as a part of the election petition itself and a copy served
upon the respondents. In this way, non-compliance with the provisions of s. 86
(1) is made out. In our opinion, this is too strict a reading of the
provisions. We have already pointed out that s. 81 (3) speaks only of the
election petition............Even if this be not the case, we are quite clear
(2) of s. 83 has reference not to a document
which is produced as evidence of the averments of the election petition but to
averments of the election petition which are put, not in the election petition
but in the accompanying schedules or annexures.
... ... ...
But what we have said here does not apply to
documents which are merely evidence in the case but which for reasons of
clarity and to lend force to the petition are not kept back but produced or
filed with the election petitions. They are in no sense an integral part of the
averments of the petition but are only evidence of those averments and in proof
The pamphlet therefore must be treated as a
document and not as a part of the election petition in so far as averments are
concerned.........It would be stretching the words of sub-s. (2) of s. 83 too
far to think that every document produced as evidence in the election petition
becomes a part of the election petition proper." It is a well settled
principle of interpretation of statute that wherever a statute contains
stringent provisions they must be literally and strictly construed so as to
promote the object of the Act. As extracted above, this Court clearly held that
if the arguments of the appellant (in that case) were to be accepted, it would
be stretching and straining the language of ss. 81 and 82 and we are in
complete agreement with the view taken by this Court which has decided the
issue once for all.
The learned counsel relied on a latter
decision of this Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande(1) where a
Division 899 Bench while considering a similar question made the following observations:
"The Preliminary issue and the appeal
turn on a short point of construction. The question that arises is whether the
words "copies thereof" in sub-section (3) of Section 81 comprehend
the election petition proper or do they also include a schedule or annexure in
terms of sub-section (2) of Section 83 or merely a document only in proof of
the allegations in paragraph 18 (b) must turn on a construction of sub-section
(3) of Section 81 read with sub-section (2) of Section 83.
It now appears to be well settled by
Sahodrabai's case, (1968 (3) SCR 13) that sub-section (2) of section 83 applies
only to a schedule or annexure which is an integral part of the election
petition and not to a document which is produced as evidence of the averments
of the election petition." This decision in no way departs from the ratio
laid down in Sahodrabai's case (supra). The aforesaid case however, rested on
the ground that the document (pamphlet) was expressly referred to in the
election petition and thus became an integral part of the same and ought to
have been served on the respondent. It is, therefore, manifest that the facts
of the case cited above are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the
Furthermore, the decision in M. Karunanidhi's
case (supra) has noticed the previous decision and has fully endorsed the same.
For these reasons, therefore, we are clearly
of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court was correct and no
interference is called for with the judgment of the High Court. As the matter
was clearly concluded by authorities of this Court we did not think it
necessary to grant special leave and hearing the parties at length we disposed
of and dismiss the petition in terms of the aforesaid observations.
P.B.R. Petition dismissed.