Jagjit Singh Vs. Dharam Pal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Election |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Aug-05-1993 |
| Civil Appeal No. 1009 of 1992 |
| S.R. Pandian and; R.M. Sahai, JJ. |
| 1995Supp(3)SCC718 |
| Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 83(1)(a) |
| Jagjit Singh |
| Dharam Pal Singh and ors. |
| Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Artsari
|
-
[s.r. pandian and; r.m. sahai, jj.] -- election — election petition — drafting — omission to specifically mention serial number of ballot papers whether fatal to the maintainability of the petition — in view of conflict between two decisions of two-judge benches of the supreme court, matter referred to a larger bench -- in jitendra bahadur singh v. krishna behari1 it has been observed that the specific detail as regards the serial number of the ballot papers as a material fact requires to be stated whereas in a subsequent decision in arun kumar bose v. mohd. furkan ansari2 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it has been held that the omission to mention the serial number of the ballot papers is not a defect so as to throw away the election petition......is a serious defect so as to reject the petition. in jitendra bahadur singh v. krishna behari1 it has been observed that the specific detail as regards the serial number of the ballot papers as a material fact requires to be stated whereas in a subsequent decision in arun kumar bose v. mohd. furkan ansari2 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it has been held that the omission to mention the serial number of the ballot papers is not a defect so as to throw away the election petition. it may be noted in this connection that in the subsequent decision, namely, in arun kumar bose2 the earlier decision in jitendra bahadur singh1 has not been referred to, presumably for the reason that the decision has not been brought to the notice of this court.2. in view of the situation, we feel that it would be just and proper to have this question decided by a larger bench.3. the office is directed to place these papers before the hon'ble chief justice of india for constituting a larger bench for early hearing as the matter relates to an election petition and also a plea of the urgency of the hearing of the case is made.
S.R. Pandian and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant for sometime on the question whether the election petition in the case on hand contains the concise statement of the material facts specifying the requirements of Section 81 read with Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. During the course of the arguments it has been brought to our notice that there is a conflict of decisions both rendered by two different Division Benches of this Court on the question whether the omission to specifically mention the serial number of the ballot papers in the election petition is a serious defect so as to reject the petition. In Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari1 it has been observed that the specific detail as regards the serial number of the ballot papers as a material fact requires to be stated whereas in a subsequent decision in Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari2 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it has been held that the omission to mention the serial number of the ballot papers is not a defect so as to throw away the election petition. It may be noted in this connection that in the subsequent decision, namely, in Arun Kumar Bose2 the earlier decision in Jitendra Bahadur Singh1 has not been referred to, presumably for the reason that the decision has not been brought to the notice of this Court.
2. In view of the situation, we feel that it would be just and proper to have this question decided by a larger Bench.
3. The office is directed to place these papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench for early hearing as the matter relates to an election petition and also a plea of the urgency of the hearing of the case is made.