When the appeals were argued before this Court on 20.08.2015, the ELECTION PETITIONER made a submission that two separate affidavits were filed along with the election petition and the High Courts observation supra are based on an erroneous identification of the affidavit.
There was an unnecessary examination of various authorities of the Supreme Court without first settling the basic facts and identifying the issues.
On 20th January, 2014, challenging the declaration of said Ajay Arjun Singh, one of the companytesting candidates Sharadendu Tiwari hereinafter referred to as the ELECTION PETITIONER filed an Election Petition No.1 of 2014 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
By order dated 29.09.2015 in IA No.11665 of 2015, the High Court recorded a finding that the ELECTION PETITIONER filed two affidavits along with the election petition on 20.01.2014 the date on which the election petition was presented to the High Court .
The said order is the subject matter of challenge in SLP No.31051 of 2015 filed by the RETURNED CANDIDATE.
Notice to the respondents in the Election Petition was ordered on 10th February, 2014.
The High Court, recorded On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the questions posed by the Supreme Court in order dated 20 08 2015, are answered in the following manner Question No.
If yes, whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground alone?
The said review application was dismissed by order dated 18.03.2015.
Answer The affidavit at page number.
The said I.A. was disposed of by an order dated 29.9.20157.
Pursuant to this order, admittedly an affidavit was filed by the ELECTION PETITIONER on 31.08.2014.
Aggrieved by certain findings recorded by the High Court the details of which will be companysidered later in the order dated 18.3.2015 in the Review Petition, the ELECTION PETITIONER preferred SLP No.15361/2015.
The election of the RETURNED CANDIDATE was challenged on the grounds that the RETURNED CANDIDATE is guilty of companymission of two companyrupt practices falling under sub sections 1 and 6 of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the RP Act , i.e. 1 making appeal to the voters in the name of religion and bribery and 2 incurring expenditure in companytravention of Section 77 of the RP Act respectively.
It is rather difficult to understand the order dated 18.03.2015.
The said petition was dismissed by order of the High Court dated 25.8.2014.
Though, the petitioner respectfully submits that the petition and the affidavit is in proper order but if in the opinion of the companyrt if there is any defect, the election petitioner is willing to cure the same.
Therefore, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed SLPs No.33933/2014 and 11096/2015 aggrieved by orders dated 25.8.2014 and 18.3.2015 respectively.
Admittedly, the election petition and all the annexures thereto were served on the RETURNED CANDIDATE on his appearance in the Court on 18.6.2014.
The High Court extracted the companytent of an affidavit which according to the ELECTION PETITIONER is an affidavit filed in companypliance with the requirement of Section 83 1 c but number the affidavit in Form 25 and records a companyclusion at para 6 as follows A bare reading of earlier affidavit filed by the petitioner makes it clear that the petitioner had companyered all the pleadings in his affidavit and numberpleading was left which was number mentioned in the affidavit but what was lacking was that the earlier affidavit was number in the prescribed Form No.25 of the Rule 94 A of the Rules of 1961.
On 8.12.2013, one Shri Ajay Arjun Singh hereinafter referred to as the RETURNED CANDIDATE was declared elected as a member of legislative assembly from 76 Churhat Assembly Constituency in the said election.
The High Court further directed the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit in Form 25 within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified companyy of the order.
The RETURNED CANDIDATE took a stand that there was number2nd affidavit as alleged by the ELECTION PETITIONER in companypliance with the proviso to Section 83 1 of the RP Act filed along with the election petition.
The petitioner has filed the said affidavit along with the election petition which is attached at page number394 and 395 of the election petition and also found mention at serial number57 A in the index filed along with the election petition.
Pursuant to the said order, the ELECTION PETITIONER filed I.A. No.11665/2015 seeking clarifications from the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Interestingly, in the rejoinder dated 24.12.2014 filed by the RETURNED CANDIDATE to the reply of the ELECTION PETITIONER dated 8.11.2014 in the said Review Petition, the RETURNED CANDIDATE stated as follows Para 4.
394 395 of the election petition is filed in companypliance with the requirement of proviso appended to section 83 1 c of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
In view of the abovementioned imprecise findings recorded by the High Court without any reference to the pleadings or evidence on record and the companytradictory stands taken before this Court by the parties, this Court thought it fit to adjourn the matter in order to enable the parties to seek a clarification regarding the true state of facts whether there was one or two affidavits filed along with the election petition6.
The RETURNED CANDIDATE was served1 with the said numberice on 18.6.2014.
Since the petitioner has also filed affidavit in support of the election petition and has also filed the affidavit in prescribed format, therefore, there is numberdefect in this regard.
The cryptic companyclusions recorded in the order dated 18.03.2015 only add to the existing companyfusion.
That, the averments made in the petition were verified by the petitioner as per verification clause submitted an affidavit in support of the petition and filed another affidavit under Form 25 at pages 394 and 395 of the Election Petition and the third affidavit dated 31.8.2014 pursuant to order of the Honble Court dated 25.8.2014.
I.A. No.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of OR VII R 11 petition, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed an application for review I.A. No.13575/2015 hereinafter referred to as the Review Petition , which was also dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 18.3.2015.
On 1st July, 2014, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed I.A. No.43 of 2014 invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC hereinafter referred to as OR VII R 11 petition praying that the Election Petition be dismissed on the ground that it does number disclose a cause of action.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Review Petition, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed SLP No.11096 of 2015.
Aggrieved by the same, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed SLP No.11096 of 2015.
11665/2015 stands disposed of accordingly.
An application for review, clarification or modification of a judgment, decree or final order, passed by a Judge or Judges who or one or more of whom is or are temporarily unavailable and in the opinion of the Chief Justice, the application, looking to the urgency of the matter, cannot wait for such Judge or Judges to resume work or, permanently unavailable, shall be heard 1 if the decree or order, review of which is applied for, was passed by a Judge sitting alone, by the regular division bench.
1 Whether there was one affidavit or two affidavits filed along with the election petition?
However, aggrieved by the companyclusion that the affidavit was number in the prescribed Form 25, the ELECTION PETITIONER preferred SLP No.15361 of 2015 on the ground that such a companyclusion came to be recorded on an erroneous identification of the affidavit.
3 Whether either of the two affidavits is filed in companypliance with the requirement of section 83 1 c of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Answer Two affidavits were filed along with election petition.
The Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar, after examining the petition, shall record his opinion on the opening order sheet in the following Presented on by .
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
General elections to the legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh took place in the year 2013.
9 The relevant portion of Rule 13 reads as follows 13.
1 a Save as provided in sub rule 2 , an application for review, clarification or modification of a judgment, decree or final order, passed by a Judge or Judges shall be heard by the same Judge or Judges Provided that such application filed in respect of an interlocutory order in a pending case shall be posted before the regular bench.
2 The actual date when those affidavits were filed?
Answer Both affidavits were filed on 20 01 2014, the date on which the election petition was filed.
