Bombay High Court: ‘GIRNAR’ a Well Known Trademark in India  ||  Kerala HC: Criminal Courts of District Judiciary Cannot Recall their Earlier Orders  ||  Madras HC: Only ‘Preponderance of Probability’ Required in Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  Raj HC: Non-Disclosure of Information Wasn’t a Ground for Disqualification Before 2015 Amendment Act  ||  Bom. HC: Workers in Statutory Canteens are Principal Employer’s Employees  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Use its ‘Inherent Powers’ to Subvert Legal Provisions  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Use its ‘Inherent Powers’ to Subvert Legal Provisions  ||  SC Refuses to Mark Presence of Advocate Who Did Not Argue the Matter  ||  SC Sets Aside HC’s Decision to Accept Aadhaar Card as a Proof of Date of Birth  ||  SC Permits Candidate with Blindness to Attend Interview for Selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved