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

PETITIONER: BASHIR MUSA PATEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SATYAWAN GANPAT JAWKAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the learned  single Judge  of the Bombay High Court, made on 11/22-2-1991  in  Election  Petition  No.13/90.  It  is  not necessary to adumberate all the corrupt practices alleged to have been  committed  by  the  appellant  mentioned  in  the election petition  filed by the respondents. It would appear that the  appellant had  filed an application to dismiss the election petition  on a preliminary ground that the required particulars of corrupt practices are lacking in the election petition  and,  therefore,  no  cause  of  action  has  been furnished to  proceed further in the election petition. That objection was  over-ruled. Subsequently, a petition has been filed to  dismiss  the  election  petition  itself.  In  the impugned order,  the learned  Judge while  holding that "the particulars are  lacking" has held that what is missing from the petition  are "merely  particulars" and  held that under Section 86(5)  of the  Representation of  People’s Act,  the Court has  discretion to  direct the  party to  furnish  the particulars.  Accordingly,   he  directed   to  furnish  the particulars as  mentioned in the operative part of the order which reads thus:      "(1) In  para 5  of the Petition in      respect of  each instance  set  out      under  sub-para   (a)  to  (e)  the      petitioner shall  state whether the      instances set out therein have been      managed by  Respondent No.1, or his      Election Agent  or by supporters of      Respondent No.1 with the consent of      Respondent No.1.  If it  is alleged      that  it  is  done  by  supporters,      Petitioner to  state the  names  of      the supporters and if the names are      not available  to  state  that  the      names are not available.      (2) In  para 6(a)  of the Petition,      the names  of the three persons who      had come  to cast bogus votes to be

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

    supplied. If  such  names  are  not      available, Petitioner to state that      the names are not available.      (3) In  para 6(b)  of the Petition,      Mr. Chinoy  had, during  the course      of his  argument, clarified that it      was not  the case of the Petitioner      that  delible   ink   for   marking      fingers was  used because it was so      managed by  Respondent No.1  or his      Election  Agent   or  any   of  his      supporters with  the consent of the      Petitioner or  Respondent No.1. The      Petitioner  to   so  state  in  the      Schedule now  to be  given. Further      the Petitioner  must give the names      of   hirelings   and   goondas   of      Respondent No.1,  if available.  If      not  available  to  so  state.  The      Petitioner to  also give  the names      of  the   Presiding   and   Polling      Officers  at   the  various  Booths      mentioned therein and who according      to  the   Petitioner,   have   been      favouring and/or  openly supporting      Respondent  No.1.   The  Petitioner      also to  state whether  the acts of      Booth  capturing   was  managed  by      Respondent   No.1    and/or/    his      Election  Agent  and/or  supporters      (whose names  must be  supplied  if      available)  with   the  consent  of      Respondent  No.1  or  his  Election      Agent;      (4) In para 6(c) of the Petition in      respect of  each instances  set out      in  sub-paras   (i)  to   (v)   the      Petitioner   to   give   the   same      particulars  as   those   set   out      hereinabove in respect of para 6(b)      viz.  whether   it  is  managed  by      Respondent No.1 and/or his Election      Agent    and/or    supporters    of      Respondent No.1 with the consent of      the Respondent No.1 or his Election      Agents, the  names of  the  parties      (if available),  including the name      of the  persons (a)  who have  cast      bogus votes,  (b) who prevented the      Petitioner’s Chief  Election  Agent      at the  point of  revolver, (c) who      removed   Book    No.17   (d)   who      threatened the Petitioner’s Polling      Agent with murder.      It   being   clarified   that   the      Petitioner need not for the present      give the  names of marathi speaking      persons who  were not  permitted to      go to the Polling Stations. This is      a  possibility   exists  of   these      witnesses being approached.      (5) In  respect of  para 7  of  the      Petition, Mr.  Chinoy has clarified      that the  Petitioner does  not have      and  will  not  lead  any  positive

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

    evidence to show that the instances      set out  in  this  para  have  been      managed or  committed by Respondent      No.1 or  his Election  Agent and/or      any supporters  of Respondent  No.1      with the  consent of the Respondent      No.1 or  his  Election  Agent.  Mr.      Chinoy however  clarifies that  one      of the  arguments of the Petitioner      will be  that these have materially      affected the  result of Election of      Respondent  No.1   and   that   the      natural and only inference would be      that   they    were   managed    by      Respondent  No.1  or  his  Election      Agent or by his supporters with the      consent  of   Respondent   or   his      Election Agent.      (6)  As   regards  para  9  of  the      Petition,  apart   from   the   two      Registration   Numbers    of    the      Vehicles    mentioned    in    this      paragraph    and     two    further      Registration  Numbers  of  Vehicles      mentioned in  Exhibit ‘J-I;  to the      Petition,  if   the  petitioner  is      relying  upon   or  has  any  other      Registration   Numbers   of   these      vehicles also.  The petitioner must      also state, if available, the Booth      numbers to  which the  voters  were      carried by to and by which vehicle.      If available,  the Petitioner  must      give the  names of  the voters whom      accordingly to the Petitioner, have      been carried  to the Polling Booths      in those  vehicles. The  petitioner      to   also    stated   whether   the      hirelings  and/or  grounds,  and/or      his    Election     Agent    and/or      supporters of  Respondent No.1 with      the  consent   of  Respondent  No.1      and/or  with  the  consent  of  his      Election Agent.  If it  is  alleged      that  it   is  by  supporters,  the      Petitioner must  give names  of the      supporters, if available. If not to      so state.      (7) Mr.  Chinoy has  clarified that      even though  there is  reference to      pamphlets and  wall posters in para      10A of  the Petition  for the  case      made   out   in   this   para   the      Petitioner is only relying upon the      pamphlets  Exhibit   ‘X’   to   the      Petition.      (8) In  respect of  para  10B,  the      Petitioner  to  state  whether  the      Issue and  circulation of pamphlets      (Exhibit  ‘Y’)  was  by  Respondent      No.1 and/or  by his  Election Agent      and/or supporters  (with names,  if      available)  with   the  consent  of      Respondent No.1 and/or his Election      Agent. The Petitioner to state when

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

    and where  the pamphlets  mentioned      in  sub-paras   (a)  and  (b)  were      circulated. The  Petitioner also to      underline portions  of Exhibits ‘X’      and  ‘Y’  which  according  to  him      amounts, to  campaigning on  ground      of religion  and/or creation and/or      promotion  of   enmity  and  hatred      between two  classes of citizen. If      it is  the case  of the  Petitioner      that the  entire documents does so,      then the Petitioner to so state.      (9) In-sub-paras  (c) and  (e)  the      Petitioner  to  give  details  like      time and  place where  the speeches      were  made   and   the   names   of      speakers. The  Petitioner  also  to      give the  names and  dates  of  the      newspaper relied  upon by them. The      Petitioner to  give similar details      in respect  of Press Conference and      the campaigns mentioned in sub-para      (e). The petitioner also to give in      respect of  each speech the gist of      the speech  which according  to the      Petitioner amounts  to  campaigning      in  the  name  of  religion  and/or      creating or  promoting feelings  of      enmity and/or  hatred. In  case,  a      speech or  Press  Conference  or  a      campaign is  by a person other than      Respondent No.1  the Petitioner  to      state whether  the same is with the      consent of  Respondent No.1  and/or      his Election Agent.      (10) The  same particulars  as  set      out  hereinabove   in  respect   of      pamphlets and  the speeches also to      be   supplied    in   respect    of      Advertisement, paintings,  posters,      banners, referred to in para 10A of      the Petition."      This direction  is  now  the  subject  matter  of  this appeal. Shri Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the respondent, in fairness,  has stated  that the  Court cannot  give a new cause of  action by  directing to  furnish  the  particulars which are  not already  part of the election petition but he sought to  sustain the  order stating  that these  are  only amplifications of  the  material  allegations  made  of  the corrupt practices  in the election petition. Therefore, they are no new facts or constitute no new cause of action. We do not agree  with the  learned counsel. These facts do furnish the further  particulars filling up the gaps which are found in  the   election  petition.   Having  found   that   these particulars are  missing, the learned Judge has committed an obvious error  in giving  the  direction  to  furnish  those particulars; in other words, providing an opportunity to the respondents to fill in the gap which would gravely prejudice the appellant  at the   trial.  Under  this  situation,  the impugned direction stands set aside and it would be open tot he learned  Judge to proceed with the trial of the matter in accordance with law.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

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