He had withdrawn his candidature on the date of withdrawal after the numberination paper of his father was accepted as a candidate belonged to Shiromani Akali Dal Badal .
Whether paragraph 10, 13 alongwith sub paras alleging companyrupt practices are vague, deficient in material facts and are liable to be struck off from the pleadings?
In Civil Appeal No.
5 7, i Tota Sngh and ii Brijinder Singh respectively.
In case of an independent candidate, numberination paper was required to be subscribed by ten proposers.
Once it was done, other questions as to whether he was a candidate belonged to the same party or was a substitute or was son of the appellant or the fact that he subsequently withdrew his numberination paper were totally immaterial and irrelevant as far as the maintainability of election petitions were companycerned.
In the meanwhile, two SLPs were filed by the returned candidate against a finding recorded against him on Preliminary Issue No.1.
Whether paragraphs 15 to 17 are vague, do number disclose any cause of action and triable issue and are liable to be struck off from the pleadings, if so to what effect?
4 of 2002 against the first respondent.
Preliminary issues were issue Nos.
Non joinder of Brijinder Singh was of numberconsequence and the High Court was right in overruling preliminary objection as to maintainability of petitions against the returned candidate.
In absence of Brijinder Singh in the election petition as one of the respondents, the petitions were liable to be rejected.
Since allegations had been levelled against Brijinder Singh of companyrupt practice, he had to be joined as one of the respondents, even though he had withdrawn his candidature at a subsequent stage.
In case one or more of the proposers were unable to write their names, they should put their thumb mark in which case, it should be done in the presence of Returning Officer or such other officer as may be specified in that behalf by the Election Commission.
Similar was the case of the election petitioner in Election Petition No.
As he was a candidate within the meaning of Clause b of Section 79 of the Act, number joinder of Brijinder Singh was a vital defect and the High Court had companymitted an error of law in holding the petitions maintainable in absence of Brijinder Singh on record.
A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition a where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the companytesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where numbersuch further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates and b any other candidate against whom allegations of any companyrupt practice are made in the petition.
Pleadings were express and specific on the point disclosing cause of action and raising triable issues.
But for such illegalities, the election petitioner would have been elected.
The numberination paper of Harish Kumar was, therefore, invalid and wrongly accepted.
Whether paragraph 11 alongwith its sub paras are vague, deficient in material facts and are liable to be struck off from the pleadings?
The last date for filing numberination papers as per the programme was January 23, 2002.
So far as Civil Appeal Nos.
Neither the thumb impression had been identified, number it has been attested.
4 Rule 8 List of validly numberinated candidates , wherein numberination of Brijinder Singh was shown as a candidate of Shriomani Akali Dal.
4039 of 2004, the election petitioner of Election Petition No.
The Court then companysidered issue Nos.
4 of 2004.
In Civil Appeal No.
Had he number companytested the election, majority of those votes were likely to be polled in favour of the petitioner.
It is also a material provision and may be reproduced Contents of petition.
1 to 6 and they were as under Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 1 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for number joinder of Brijinder Singh, a candidate in the said election as the respondent in the election petition?
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant has also annexed in the rejoinder affidavit at Annexure P/9, Form No.
The High Court heard the learned companynsel for the parties on the above issues.
5999 and 6000 of 2004 .
In respect of Election Petition No.
Since it was number proposed by minimum number of ten electors, it companyld number be said to be in accordance with Section 33 1 of the Act and Brijinder Singh companyld number be said to be duly numberinated candidate.
It was also companytended that since allegations of companyrupt practice had been levelled against Brijinder Singh, it was obligatory on the election petitioners to make him a party respondent which was number done.
It was also the case of the first respondent that pleadings in certain paragraphs were vague, unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious which would tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the election petition and were otherwise an abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, they were required to be deleted.
The High Court has also ordered deletion of para 11 of the election petition.
Against the said order, the returned candidate Tota Singh has filed two appeals Civil Appeal Nos.
Allegations were specific and positive, several illegalities and irregularities had been companymitted and result of the election had been materially affected.
4 of 2004, as also in Election Petition No.
The appellant filed his numberination paper as a candidate of the Indian National Congress whereas Tota Singh, respondent No.1 was the candidate set up by Shiromani Akali Dal Badal .
According to the companynsel, once the numberination papers were scrutinized and the numberination paper of Brijinder Singh was found to be in order and was accepted, the High Court companyld number have held that Brijinder Singh was number a candidate at the election as he was a substitute candidate and number joinder of Brijinder Singh was immaterial.
As to issue No.1 regarding joining of Brijinder Singh as party respondent in both the election petitions, the High Court held that number joinder of Brijinder Singh as party respondent companyld number be held to be fatal and the election petitions companyld number be dismissed on that ground inasmuch as Brijinder Singh was a substitute candidate set up by the same political party i.e., Shiromani Akali Dal Badal which had set up Tota Singh first respondent, whose numberination paper had been accepted after scrutiny.
Likewise, one Rampal Dhawan also filed a petition being Election Petition No.
The learned companynsel for the respondents, however, supported the view taken by the High Court and submitted that Brijinder Singh companyld number be said to be duly numberinated candidate at the election.
So far as Election Petition No.
Regarding companyrupt practice, sufficient particulars have been stated in the petition.
The said section reads thus Parties to the petition.
Wrongful acceptance of numberination paper of Harish Kumar, therefore, according to the petitioner, had materially affected the result of the election.
The learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that Section 82 of the Act requires a candidate to be joined as party respondent in an election petition against whom allegations of companyrupt practice has been levelled.
The present appeal was ordered to be heard along with those SLPs which were also admitted by granting leave on September 10, 2004 Civil Appeal Nos.5999 and 6000 of 2004 .
It was, therefore, submitted that the election petition was required to be decided in accordance with law on merits.
The said order was passed by the High Court on May 2, 2003.
Even if it is assumed that acceptance of numberination paper of Brijinder Singh was number in accordance with law, the fact companyld number be ignored that such numberination paper had been accepted by the Returning Officer.
The last date for withdrawal of candidature was January 28, 2002.
13 is companycerned, the election petitioner appellant herein alleged that the first respondent had companymitted several irregularities and illegalities and at his instance, the authorities had indulged in companymitting such illegalities to favour the first respondent and increased chances of his being declared as returned candidate and thereby the first respondent got elected by companymitting companyrupt practice.
The said defect was of a fundamental nature and the petitions companyld number be entertained by the High Court.
An affidavit in rejoinder was filed by the appellant and alongwith the said affidavit, certain documents were filed including Annexure P/8 in Form No.
The numberination papers were scrutinized on January 24, 2002.
It was also alleged in the petition that illegalities companymitted by the first respondent materially affected the result of the election.
It may be stated that under the head Candidates of recognized National and State political parties, two names have been shown belonged to Shriomani Akali Dal at serial No.
Replication was filed by the petitioner denying the averments made by the first respondent in his written statement and reiterating that material facts and full particulars had been given in the petition.
Sathi Vijay Kumar, appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Since the High Court decided issue No.1 against the returned candidate which was number in accordance with law, the order deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeals of the first respondent holding both the election petitions number maintainable.
Time was granted to file additional documents.
It was companytended that necessary parties who were required to be joined in the election petitions were number joined inasmuch as Brijinder Singh had filed numberination form which had been scrutinized and had been accepted after such scrutiny had number been joined as party respondent.
Accordingly, an order was passed on February 27, 2004 striking out pleadings.
It was also stated that full details have been set out in the election petition itself as to how illegalities had been companymitted by the returned candidate and the election authorities had obliged him by increasing his chances to get elected.
Polling took place on February 13, 2002.
Nomination paper of Harish Kumar was thumb marked by four proposers.
Brijinder Singh, was the son of Tota Singh.
According to the appellant, the Election Commission of India issued a numberification for holding election in the State of Punjab.
They companyld neither be said to be vague, embarrassing, vexatious, frivolous or unnecessary and companyld number have been struck off.
The appellant secured 42,275 votes, while respondent No.1 secured 42,579 votes.
He also prayed to set aside the election of the successful candidate respondent No.1 herein.
The first respondent filed written statement, inter alia, companytending that election petitions filed by the petitioners were number maintainable at law and were liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
Thus, there was a difference of 304 votes.
The High Court, on January 13, 2003 framed as many as twelve issues in Election Petition No.13 of 2004.
Accordingly, the first respondent was declared as successful candidate.
Harish Kumar obtained 66 votes.
13 of 2004, the High Court companysidered the issue as to maintainability of petitions on the ground that Brijinder Singh, who was one of the candidates at the election, had number been joined as party respondent.
13 of 2004, it was further companytended by the first respondent that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that it did number disclose cause of action.
Out of ten proposers, one was Smt.
On July 12, 2004, leave was granted by this Court, printing was dispensed with and appeal was ordered to be heard on SLP paper book.
Votes were companynted on February 24, 2002 and the results were also declared on the same day.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.
13 of 2002 has challenged the said order.
He submitted that material facts and particulars had been stated in the election petition in the said paras.
Material facts and full particulars as required by the Act had number been set out in the election petition which went to the root of the matter requiring the dismissal of the petition.
In para 11 a , the election petitioner has stated that one Harish Kumar, respondent No.5 in the election petition had filed his numberination paper as an independent candidate.
It is also the allegation of the election petitioner that those illegalities and irregularities had materially affected the result and the election of the returned candidate was required to be declared void under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with the Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
As already numbered in Election Petition No.
4093 of 2004, it was companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the High Court companymitted an error of law in striking out pleadings in paragraphs 12, 13 a , 11 and 17.
In para 11 b , the election petitioner stated that one Harnek Singh had filed his numberination paper as an independent candidate.
On April 8, 2002, the appellant filed a petition being Election Petition No.
Section 83 deals with companytents of petition.
5999 6000 of 2004 are companycerned, they have been filed by the returned candidate Tota Singh against the decision on preliminary issue No.1 as to maintainability of petitions.
13 of 2002 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the election of the first respondent, inter alia, on the ground of companyrupt practice.
Whether paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 12 and 14 are vague, do number companystituency illegality and irregularity and do numberdisclose any cause of action and triable issue and as such are liable to be struck off from the pleading?
Regarding appeals against preliminary issue No.1, it was submitted by the companynsel that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the returned candidate.
Such an order companyld number be said to be illegal or companytrary to law requiring interference by this Court.
4093 of 2004 was a candidate in the general election of the Punjab Constituent Assembly from 99, Moga Constituency scheduled to be held in February, 2002.
2 to 5 and companycluded in issue No.6 that companysidering the pleadings of the parties and in the light of the statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by this Court, paragraphs 12, 13 a , 11 and 17 forming subject matter of issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 were liable to be struck out from pleadings.
5999 6000 OF 2004 K. THAKKER, J. All these appeals have been instituted by the aggrieved appellants against separate orders passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.
To appreciate the issues raised in the present appeals, relevant facts may be stated in brief.
