Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

Manohar Vs.The Election Commission of India and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (11 Feb 2020)

In absence of complete cause of action for declaring election of returned candidate to be void, election petition is to be summarily dismissed without trial

MANU/MH/0220/2020

Election

Present election petition filed under Section 80 read with Section 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenges the election of the respondent no. 3 who has been declared as the returned candidate in the general elections from Nagpur Lok Sabha Constituency that were held in May 2019. According to the Petitioner who was also a candidate at the said election, on account of non-compliance with various statutory provisions, the election of the returned candidate is liable to be declared as null and void.

The election petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act for seeking a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void.

It is not sufficient to merely state that, there has been non-compliance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed therein. It is also necessary to indicate that as a result of such violation, the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected. The pleadings do not indicate any pleadings whatsoever to atleast indicate that as a result of non-compliance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules, the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected.

In absence of any pleadings whatsoever that on account of non-compliance of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed therein the election of the returned candidate was materially affected, it would have to be held that the election petition is based on an incomplete cause of action. Thus following the law as laid down in Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal and in view of the failure on the part of the election petitioner to aver non-compliance with the provisions of Constitution of India or the provisions of the said Act or any Rules/Orders framed under the said Act thereby materially affecting the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate was concerned, the election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed without trial.

No useful purpose would be served by permitting the election petition to proceed for trial in absence of any pleadings whatsoever in the election petition that the election of the returned candidate was required to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act. In absence of basic averments, it would also not be permissible for the election petitioner to lead any evidence in that regard.

The election petition is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC as there is absence of complete cause of action for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act. Election Petition dismissed.

Tags : NON-COMPLIANCE   PROVISIONS   CAUSE OF ACTION   ABSENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved