http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: A. MADAN MOHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALAVAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1984

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR  871            1984 SCR  (2) 894  1984 SCC  (2) 288        1984 SCALE  (1)294  CITATOR INFO :  E&F        1990 SC 924  (33)

ACT:      Representation of the People Act, 1951;      Sections 81,  82  and  86-Schedules  and  annexures  to election petition  not served on the opposite party-Failure- Whether renders  the  petition  liable  to  be  rejected  in limine.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent  filed an  election petition in the High Court  alleging  that  the  returned  candidate  (petitioner herein) had  committed corrupt  practices which rendered his election void.  The returned  candidate made  an application stating that  the respondent  had committed  breach  of  the mandatory provisions of section 81 (3) in that with the copy of the  election petition served on him, copies of documents and schedules  which formed an integral part of the election petition, had not been enclosed and that for this reason the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86. The High Court dismissed his application. In the special leave  petition the returned candidate has urged the same argument advanced by him before the High Court.      Dismissing the petition, ^      HELD: There is no requirement of law that the documents or schedules  to the election petition should also be served on the  candidate because  if they were filed in Court it is always open  to the  returned candidate  to inspect them and find out  the allegations made in the petition. Documents or schedules do  not form  an integral  part  of  the  election petition. [897E-F]      In the  instant case  all that was necessary to be done by the  election petitioner  had  been  done.  The  election petition was  accompanied by  as many  copies as  there were respondents. It  was duly  verified and  copies thereof were accompanied by necessary schedules containing the details of corrupt practices  and the schedules were also signed by the petitioner. [897E-F] 895      Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [1968 3 SCR and M.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

V. Hande, [1983] 2 SCC 473, held inapplicable.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 11868 of 1983.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated the 16th July, 1983 of the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court  in Application No. 53 of 83.      Soli J. Sorabjee, V.R. Reddy, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and K. Shivraj Chowdhary for the Petitioner.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J.  This  petition  for  special  leave  is directed against  an interlocutory Order dated July 16, 1983 of the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court rejecting the application of the  petitioner for  dismissing the  election petition of the respondent  in limine  under s. 86 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.)      The petition arises out of an election to the Siddipets Assembly Constituency  in Andhra Pradesh which took place on January 5,  1983. The petitioner was declared elected to the said Assembly.  The respondent filed an election petition in the High Court alleging certain corrupt practices.      The short  point for  consideration before  us is as to whether or  not the  election  petition  was  liable  to  be dismissed in  limine under s. 86 of the Act as the copies of the documents  and schedules,  which formed an integral part of  the   election  petition,   were  not  supplied  to  the petitioner which amounted to a clear breach of the mandatory provisions contained in s. 81 (3) of the Act.      The High Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application  of the  petitioner  for  throwing  out  the election petition  of the respondent in limine We have heard counsel for  the parties  at length  and it seems to us that the matter  is no  longer res  integra and  is covered  by a decision of  this Court  is  Sahodrabai  Rai  v.  Ram  Singh Aharwar (1) to which we shall refer hereafter. 896      On the  findings of  the High  Court  three  facts  are clearly proved:      (a)  that when  the election petition was filed, it was           accompanied  by   as  many   copies  as  were  the           respondents,      (b)  that the  election petition  was duly verified and           the  copies   thereof  were   accompanied  by  the           necessary  schedules  containing  the  details  of           corrupt practices, and      (c)  that  the   schedules  or  the  annexures  to  the           petition  were   also  signed   by  the   election           petitioner (respondent).      The only  complaint of the petitioner was that the copy of the  election petition  served on him was not accompanied by copies  of the  schedules and  hence there  was  a  clear breach of  the provisions  of s.  81 (3) of the Act. Section 81(3) may be extracted thus:                "81. Presentation of petitions-                     XX        XX        XX                (3)  Every   election   petition   shall   be           accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are           respondents mentioned  in the  petition, and every           such copy  shall be  attested  by  the  petitioner           under his  own signature  to be a true copy of the           petition."      An analysis of the above reveals-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    (a)  that the petition should be accompanied by as many           copies as there are respondents,      (b)  that every  such copy  should be  attested by  the           petitioner under  his own  signature to  be a true           copy of the petition.      It is  not  disputed  in  this  case  that  both  these conditions were fully satisfied.      Section 83 of the Act contains four requirements, viz.,      (a)  that the election petition shall contain a concise           statement of the material facts relied upon by the           petitioner,      (b)  that the  petitioner should  set  forth  the  full           particulars of the corrupt practices alleged, 897      (c)  that  the   petition  should   be  signed  by  the           petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in           the Code  of Civil  Procedure and  where a corrupt           practice is  alleged the  petition should  also be           accompanied by  an  affidavit  in  the  prescribed           form,  giving   the  particulars  of  the  corrupt           practice, and      (d)  any schedule  or annexure  to the  petition should           also be signed and verified by the petitioner.      These  conditions  have  also  been  fulfilled  in  the present case.      The counsel  for the  petitioner  vehemently  contended that as the schedules and other documents formed an integral part of  the petition,  the same  should have been served on the petitioner  (respondent in  the High  Court)  before  it could be  said that  the provisions  of ss. 81 and 82 of the Act had  been complied  with. It  was further argued that in the absence of such a compliance, the petition was liable to be rejected  in limine  under s.  86 of  the  Act.  We  are, however, unable to agree with this contention which does not at all flow from the plain and simple requirements of ss. 81 and 82.  As indicated above, all that was necessary was done in this case and there was no requirement that the documents or the  schedules  should  also  have  been  served  on  the petitioner because  if they  were filed  in the Court it was always open  to the  petitioner to inspect them and find out the allegations  made in the petition. We are unable to hold that the  documents or the schedules formed an integral part of the petition.      An identical  question came up for consideration before this  Court   in  Sahodrabai’s   case  (supra)  where  while repelling a similar argument the following observations were made:           "The only  provision to  which our  attention  has      been drawn  is sub-s. (3) of s. 81 and sub-s. (2) of s.      83. The  first provides  that every  election  petition      shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there      are respondents  mentioned in  the  petition  and  that      every such  copy shall  be an  authenticated true copy.      The words  used here  are only "the election petition."      There is  no mention  of any  document accompanying the      election petition.........Assistance  is however  taken      from the  provisions of  sub-s.  (2)  of  s.  83  which      provides that any schedule or any annexure to the 898      petition shall  also be  signed by  the petitioner  and      verified in  the same  manner as  the petition.  It  is      contended that  since the  pamphlet was  an annexure to      the petition  it was  not only  necessary to  sign  and      verify it,  but that  it should  have been treated as a      part of  the election petition itself and a copy served

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    upon the  respondents. In this way, non-compliance with      the provisions  of s.  86  (1)  is  made  out.  In  our      opinion,  this   is  too   strict  a   reading  of  the      provisions. We  have already pointed out that s. 81 (3)      speaks only of the election petition............Even if      this be  not the  case, we  are quite clear that sub-s.      (2) of  s. 83  has reference not to a document which is      produced as  evidence of  the averments of the election      petition but  to averments  of  the  election  petition      which are  put, not in the election petition but in the      accompanying schedules or annexures.           ...  ...  ...           But what  we have  said here  does  not  apply  to      documents which  are merely  evidence in  the case  but      which for  reasons of  clarity and to lend force to the      petition are  not kept  back but produced or filed with      the  election  petitions.  They  are  in  no  sense  an      integral part  of the averments of the petition but are      only evidence  of those averments and in proof thereof.      The pamphlet  therefore must  be treated  as a document      and not as a part of the election petition in so far as      averments are  concerned.........It would be stretching      the words  of sub-s. (2) of s. 83 too far to think that      every document  produced as  evidence in  the  election      petition  becomes  a  part  of  the  election  petition      proper."      It is  a well  settled principle  of interpretation  of statute  that   wherever  a   statute   contains   stringent provisions they  must be literally and strictly construed so as to  promote the  object of  the Act.  As extracted above, this Court  clearly  held  that  if  the  arguments  of  the appellant (in  that case)  were to  be accepted, it would be stretching and  straining the  language of ss. 81 and 82 and we are  in complete  agreement with  the view  taken by this Court which has decided the issue once for all.      The learned counsel relied on a latter decision of this Court in  the case of M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande(1) where a Division 899 Bench  while   considering  a   similar  question  made  the following observations:           "The Preliminary  issue and  the appeal  turn on a      short point  of construction.  The question that arises      is whether  the words  "copies thereof"  in sub-section      (3) of  Section 81  comprehend  the  election  petition      proper or  do they  also include a schedule or annexure      in terms  of sub-section  (2) of Section 83 or merely a      document only  in proof of the allegations in paragraph      18 (b)  must turn  on a construction of sub-section (3)      of Section  81 read with sub-section (2) of Section 83.      It now appears to be well settled by Sahodrabai’s case,      (1968 (3)  SCR 13)  that sub-section  (2) of section 83      applies only  to a  schedule or  annexure which  is  an      integral part  of the  election petition  and not  to a      document which is produced as evidence of the averments      of the election petition."      This decision  in no  way departs  from the  ratio laid down  in  Sahodrabai’s  case  (supra).  The  aforesaid  case however, rested  on the  ground that the document (pamphlet) was expressly  referred to in the election petition and thus became an  integral part  of the same and ought to have been served on  the respondent.  It is,  therefore, manifest that the  facts   of   the   case   cited   above   are   clearly distinguishable  from   the  facts   of  the  present  case. Furthermore, the  decision in  M. Karunanidhi’s case (supra)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

has noticed the previous decision and has fully endorsed the same.      For these  reasons, therefore,  we are  clearly of  the opinion that  the view  taken by  the High Court was correct and no  interference is  called for with the judgment of the High  Court.   As  the   matter  was  clearly  concluded  by authorities of  this Court  we did not think it necessary to grant special  leave and  hearing the  parties at  length we disposed of  and  dismiss  the  petition  in  terms  of  the aforesaid observations. P.B.R.                                   Petition dismissed. 900