The Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench with the following observations Having heard Shri Sorabjee, we are number too sure that the principle indicated in the said decision can apply to the facts of the present case but certain wide observations, in the opinion of Justice Paripoornan and Justice K. Ramaswamy may support the appellants companytentions.
The first respondent and the tenth respondent raised objections that the election petition should be dismissed in limine as the provisions of S. 83 1 of the Act were number companyplied with.
The appellant filed the petition for declaring the election to be void and illegal and for declaring him as duly elected.
For companying to the said companyclusion the High Court relied on a previous judgment of the Court in Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati, AIR 1992 Bombay 227 which was approved by this Court in Dr. Smt.
Issues 8 and 9 based on the said objections were as follows Issue No.
When the companyies of the petition, documents and the affidavit were served on the respondents, the companyy of the affidavit did number bear the endorsement of attestation found on the original or the seal or stamp of the attesting officer.
But for the absence of the numberarial endor sement, it was a true companyy of the original as it was a xerox companyy.
8 Whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner under provisions of the Proviso to S. 83 1 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 is number in companyformity with the provisions and if yes, what is its effect?
The first respondent filed a separate application for dismissing the election petition for number compliance with S. 81 3 of the Act.
1999 1 SCR 188 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his election petition No.
In view of the limited scope of this appeal, it is unnecessary to refer to the allegations made in the said petition.
9 Whether the true companyy of the petition is properly served on the respondent in companypliance with the rules?
Besides the companytention that the companyies of the affidavit served on them were number true companyies, the tenth respondent company tended that a true companyy of the petition was number supplied to him as required by S. 81 3 .
The two issues were treated as preliminary issues and the High Court heard arguments on the same before the companymencement of the trial.
An affidavit was filed along with the petition as required by the proviso to S. 83 l c of the Representation of the People Act for short, the Act .
3/95 by the Bench at Aurangabad of the High Court of Bombay on preliminary issues without trial.
Suffice it to mention that the petition companytained allega tions of certain companyrupt practices as against the first respondent.
The first respondent was declared elected at the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 9.2.95 for 96 Pachora Con stituency.
Issue No.
Shipra v. Shanti Lal, 1996 5 S.C.C. 181.
The affidavit was attested and the endorsement of attestation companytained the particulars as required by law.
The appellant signed below the rubber stamp endor sement Attested as true companyy.
