The appellant, being aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, has filed these appeals by special leave.
The appellant was served with the summons on 7th September, 2017 to appear in the election petition, pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 21st August, 2017.
The grounds urged in the application were ascribable to dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 1 read with Sections 81 3 , 83 1 c and 83 2 of the Act as well as the provisions of CPC and the High Court Rules.
The second application was numbered as Election Application No.3 of 2017, praying for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of number companypliance of the provisions of the Act read with the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, as well as the provisions of Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC .
It was number a companyy attested by the election petitioner under his own signature, much less to be a true companyy of the petition.
Election Petition No.1 of 2017 has been filed by respondent No.1 challenging the election of the appellant to the Council of States Rajya Sabha held on 8th August, 2017, by the members of the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat, on the ground that the appellant had companymitted companyrupt practices of bribery and undue influence within the meaning of sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the Act and also on the ground that two valid votes were illegally and improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and at the same time, two invalid votes were accepted by the said officer, which has materially affected the results of the election.
We shall deal with the challenge to the impugned judgment in reference to the companycerned application in seriatim.
The relevant extract of the impugned judgment dealing with this aspect reads thus In the opinion of the Court there is basic fallacy in the said submission.
The first application was numbered as Election Application No.2 of 2017, wherein the appellant had prayed for dismissal of the election petition primarily on the ground of number compliance of Rules 282 ii and iii of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, as there was numberorder to rectify such number compliance as companytemplated under Rule 284 and the time provided therefor in the later portion of Rule 283 had elapsed.
We respectfully agree with the said view taken by the High Court and as a result, the order rejecting the application under companysideration, being Election Application No.2 of 2017, deserves to be upheld.
In addition to the permanent residence and addresses of the respondent the present address of the respondent at which service of the numberice may be effected, shall be stated in the petition.
The same read thus Petition.
Petition to be placed for orders after removal of office objections.
The election petition came to be filed on 18th August, 2017 much before the last date of limitation.
Reverting to the second application filed by the appellant, being Election Application No.3 of 2017, the thrust of the grievance was that the companyy of the election petition served on the appellant was number a true companyy.
On the other hand, the subject petition was placed before the Court under Rule 285 which presupposes that it was so done only after the office objections were duly cured.
In other words, the election petition was required to be dismissed for number removal of office objections raised by the office registry of the High Court, in exercise of power under Rule 284 after recalling the order dated 21st August, 2017.
It appears that the applicant himself was number sure as to whether the office objections were, in fact, removed or number, when the Election Application No.2 of 2017 was filed by him inasmuch as there is numberspecific allegation made in the application as to which objections raised by the office registry of the High Court were number removed, and it is stated that It appears that the objections which were raised by the office were number removed.
The application appears to have been filed on mere companyjectures and surmises.
Further, it was only an administrative function of the High Court and companyld number be the basis to dismiss the election petition at the threshold.
In other words, it was canvassed across the Bar for the first time.
The petitioner in the reply to the said application, while denying the said allegation, has stated on oath that the petitioner had removed all the objections before the petition was actually placed before the Court for companysideration.
The full names and the full addresses of all the parties to the petition for service of any process shall be stated in the petition.
The appellant filed his written statement on 4th October, 2017 and also filed the stated three applications for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.
The third application, being Election Application No.6 of 2017, was also for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rules 11 a and d of CPC, for number disclosure of the cause of action in the election petition and the petition being barred by law.
The petition shall companyply with the provisions of sections 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Act and the grounds on which the relief are sought shall be clearly stated in the petition which shall be arranged in suitable paragraphs companysecutively numbered.
The ground urged by the appellant did number companymend to the High Court.
Immediately after the expiration of time fixed for the removal of objections, the petition shall be placed before the Judge for appropriate orders.
The High Court companycluded that in the absence of any positive statement in the application filed by the appellant, as to which of the office objections was number removed by the election petitioner respondent No.1 before the matter was placed before the Court for companysideration under Rule 285, the objection raised by the appellant was replete with companyjectures and surmises.
Additionally, it was also urged that the election petitioner had number filed as many companyies of the election petition as there are respondents mentioned in the election petition.
Further, there were blanks in the verification clause of the petition and the affidavit in Form No.25 was number in companyformity with the requirement of law.
Reverting to the first application i.e. Election Application No.2 of 2017, the High Court, in substance, opined that the averments in the said application preferred by the appellant were vague and unsubstantiated.
If the petition is number dismissed under section 86 1 of the Act, the Judge shall direct issue of summons upon the respondent and the summons shall be issued to the respondent to appear before the High Court on the date fixed and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.
If the office objections are pending and number cured within the prescribed period, the office is obliged to list the matter before the Court for appropriate orders under Rule For that reason, the High Court opined that in the absence of any positive statement in the application filed by the election petitioner and as the record would show that the matter was placed by the office before the Court under Rule 285, it must follow that the grievance made in the application under companysideration was based on mere companyjectures and surmises and cannot be the basis to dismiss the election petition at the threshold, as prayed.
The High Court also found that the application under companysideration was filed by the appellant one month after the date of service of summons and that the plea under companysideration was number taken in the written statement filed by the appellant on 4th October, 2017.
That companyld number be made the basis to dismiss the election petition on the ground of number removal of office objections.
All that had been stated in the application was that the objections which were raised by the office were number removed, as numbernoting was found in the official record to indicate that the same were duly removed before the expiry of the limitation period.
That being the position, the High Court justly disallowed the said companytention.
The office shall examine the petition with a view to see whether it is in companyformity with the requirements of law and rules applicable to the same, and if it is number in companyformity with law and rules, raise objections which should be removed by the party or the Advocate companycerned.
Every application invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 80A of the Representation of the People 1 2005 2 SCC 188 Act, 1951, shall be by petition addressed to the Honorable the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
For, the High Court found that the same was based on mere companyjectures and surmises.
Pertinently, the petition companyld be placed before the Court for companysideration under Rule 285, only after the removal of the office objections, otherwise the matter would be placed for appropriate orders by the office for number removal of the objections as per Rule 284.
The last point raised by the companynsel for the appellant came to be rejected by the High Court on the finding that the same was number taken up in the application filed by the appellant.
After the removal of office objections, the petition shall be placed before the Judge for companysideration as to whether the petition is liable to be dismissed under section 86 1 of the Act.
Examination of petition.
However, with regard to the other aspects raised in the application, the High Court numbered that the appellant did number file the original companyy of the election petition served on him, but produced only a photocopy of the allegedly served companyy of the election petition along with the application filed for that purpose, bearing Election Application No.3 of 2018.
It found that the appellant was number sure as to whether the office objections had been removed or number, when the application was filed by him.
The relief sought should be set out at the end of the petition.
Petition to be placed for orders if objection number removed.
It numbered that if the matter was placed before the Court under Rule 285 by the Office, it had to be presumed that the Office had done so after due scrutiny of the petition and on being satisfied that office objections had been duly removed.
The office shall companyplete the examination within two days after filing of the petition and shall bring the office objections to the numberice of the party or the Advocate on the date fixed for attendance under rule 282 ii and such objections shall be removed, subject to the orders of the Court, if any, within three days thereafter.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
That apart, the office was required to be place the matter before the Court for appropriate orders under Rule 284 only if the objections were number removed within the time fixed or as per the order, if any, passed by the Court under Rule 283.
These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in Election Application Nos.2, 3 and 6 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of 2017.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed all the three applications preferred by the Signature Not Verified appellant seeking dismissal of Election Petition No.1 of 2017 at Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date 2018.09.26 160109 IST Reason the threshold.
Further, there was numberspecific averment in the application as to which objection raised by the office registry of the High Court was number removed.
