Samir Ranjan Barman Vs. Bhanu Lal Saha - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - now, we are left for consideration of the grounds of para 2. the allegation in para 2 reads as :that the petitioner has failed to comply with the special provisions relating to the procedure in election petition under the representation of the people act, 1951 of the gauhati high court rules as embodied, in chapter viii-a of the said rules in as much as the election petition, at the time of presentation was not accompanied by envelopes bearing requisite postage stamps to enable service to be effected by registered post with acknowledgment due and printed forms of notices, duly filled in. s. haque, j. 1. this petition by the respondent no. 1 (election petition no! 3 of 1988) is purported to be made under provisions of section 86 of the rule p. act read with order viii, rule 11 and section 151 of the code of civil procedure for dismissing/rejection of the election petition on the grounds raised in paras 2, 4 and 5, however, for the reasons recorded in the orders dated 6th and 7th december, 1988 the petitioner is not going to press the grounds under paras 4 and 5 presently. now, we are left for consideration of the grounds of para 2. the allegation in para 2 reads as :-- 'that the petitioner has failed to comply with the special provisions relating to the procedure in election petition under the representation of the people act, 1951 of thegauhati high court rules as.....

Judgment:

S. Haque, J.

1. This petition by the respondent No. 1 (Election Petition No! 3 of 1988) is purported to be made under provisions of Section 86 of the Rule P. Act read with Order VIII, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing/rejection of the Election Petition on the grounds raised in paras 2, 4 and 5, However, for the reasons recorded in the orders dated 6th and 7th December, 1988 the petitioner is not going to press the grounds under paras 4 and 5 presently. Now, we are left for consideration of the grounds of para 2. The allegation in para 2 reads as :--

'That the petitioner has failed to comply with the special provisions relating to the procedure in Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 of the

Gauhati High Court Rules as embodied, in Chapter VIII-A of the said Rules in as much as the Election Petition, at the time of presentation was not accompanied by envelopes bearing requisite postage stamps to enable service to be effected by Registered Post with Acknowledgment due and printed forms of notices, duly filled in. The non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Chap. VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules in presenting the Election Petition amounts to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in as much as the said special provisions as contained in Chap. VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules are required to be read with Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,'

The election petitioner has filed written objection (Para 6) as against the ground in para 2 of this petition which runs as :--

'That while replying to the statements made in para 2 of the instant petition it is hereby, stated by the petitioner, Bhanu Lal Saha has complied with all the requirements of law, substantive or procedural, at all times. It is the respondent No. 1 who has violated the law and has won the election by adopting unfair means and indulged in 'corrupt practices'. The petitioner submitted registered envelopes, with acknowledgment due and the respondent No. 1 received the same by post. As regards the printed forms of notices, these were not supplied by the Office of the Hon'ble High Court, Agartala Bench. The enquiries made by the petitioner revealed that these printed forms of notices were and are not available. So no question of filling those arises. Apart from that it is a settled law that non-observance of procedural law is a mere irregularity and not an illegality which is always curable and the provisions contained in Chapter VIII-A incorporating 'Rules' framed by the Hon'ble High Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951' are hot mandatory. Hence the contentions of the respondent No. 1 are not correct.'

2. Learned counsel 1 Mr. A. K. Bhowmik for the respondent No. 1 and learned counsel 1 Mr. A. Chakraborty fot the election petitioner have made their submissions in details on 7-12-1988.

3. The Rules under Chap. VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules are the special provisions relating to procedure in election petition. The first part of the Rule l(a) relating to copies to be accompanied with the election petition is in conformity with Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Whereas, the second part of the said Rule relating to envelopes with postage stamps and as per Rule 1(b) relating to printing forms of notices to be accompanied with the election petition at the time of its presentation had been incorporated purely for procedural purpose to enable service of notices immediately after the orders of the Court in this regard. The election petitioner had stated in the written objection that the envelopes, postage stamps were duly filed but printed forms of notices were not available at the Office of the High Court (Agartala Bench) at the time of presentation of the election petition. However, the office note dated 16-3-1988 of the Agartala Bench on the border of the order-sheet have not disclosed about the fact of filing the envelopes with postage stamps. Non-submission of the same along with presentation of the election petition was a procedural irregularity only. Although, the election petition was presented at Agartala Bench on 16-3-88, it was registered on 20-4-1988 under the order of this Court at the principal seat (Gauhati); and thereafter, on 9-5-1988 the election petition was admitted and orders passed for issuing notices through registered A/D posts on the respondents and the petitioner was granted 10 days time to take all steps at Agartala Bench. Accordingly, the election petitioner took all steps within that time at Agartala and filed notices with envelops and postage stamps to enable services to be effected by registered posts with acknowledgment due on the respondents. Non-submission of envelopes with postage stamps and notices at the time of presentation

of the Election Petition at Agartala Bench was merely a procedural irregularity and it cannot be a ground for rejection/dismissal of the Election Petition.

4. The allegations made in para 2 of this petition are not sufficient to dismiss or reject the Election Petition.

5. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

6. This Civil Misc. Case No. 236 of 1988 is disposed of.