| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/462318 |
| Subject | Election |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Decided On | Mar-05-1986 |
| Case Number | Election Petn. No. 63 of 1985 |
| Judge | B.D. Agrawal, J. |
| Reported in | AIR1987All92 |
| Acts | Constitution of India - Article 191(2); Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Sections 1; Uttar Pradesh Secondazry Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 - Sections 1; Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 83(1) and 100(1); Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 82; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 16, Rules 15 and 20 |
| Appellant | Ramji Pandey |
| Respondent | Vikramaditya and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | K.N. Tripathi, ;G.K. Pandey and ;A.K. Upadhya, Advs. |
| Respondent Advocate | R.C. Srivasatava, ;R.A. Pandey and ;S.N. Srivastava, Advs. |
| Disposition | Petition dismissed |
B.D. Agrawal, J.
This is an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951.
2. General Election to the State Legislative Assembly took place in the month of March, 1985. For the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 227, Ballia, the fast date for filing the nominations was notified as 6th Feb. 1986: the scrutiny was to take place on the 7th and the nomination could be withdrawn up to 9th Feb. The poll took place on 2nd March. 1985. The petitioner and the respondents I to 19 were the contesting candidates at this election. Counting of votes took place on 6th March followed by the declaration of the result. The respondent. I was declared elected defeating the petitioner, who was the nearest rival, by a margin of 1645 votes.
3. The election of the respondent is challenged by the petitioner on two grounds. The first is that on the date of the nomination the respondent was the Principal. Shahid Mangal Pandey Intermediate College. Nagwa district Ballia a recognised Government institution and as such he was disqualified from seeking election to the State Legislative Assembly in view of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. Due to the nomination of the respondent being accepted, however, the election was materially affected so far as the returned candidate is concerned. The other ground raised is that there has been breach of the provisions of the Act/Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in the matter of counting of the ballot papers thereby affecting the result materially. The relief claimed is declaration that the election of the respondent 1 is void and that the petitioner is duly elected. The petitioner has also prayed for inspection, scrutiny and recounting of the entire set of used and rejected ballot papers and the counterfoils.
4. The petition is resisted by the respondent 1, who has put in application under Order VI Rule 16 Civil P. C. read with Order VII Rule 17 Section 83(1)(a) of the Act contending that there is no cause of action disclosed in the petition nor the material facts stated and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. So far as the ground No. 1 of the petition, referred to above, is concerned it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that this same ground arose recently in Election Petn. No. 54 of 1985 (Sarnam Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Devi, decided on 17th Jan. 1986): (reported in 1986 All LJ 507). The question arising therein also was whether the respondent, a teacher in the Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, Budaun a Slate aided educational institution could he said to hold an office of profit under the Suite Government and therefore considered disqualified from seeking election to the Slate Legislative Assembly in view of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. After detailed consideration the finding arrived at by me therein was as follows : --
'In the light of the aforesaid discussion my conclusions are that the control of the State Government though expanding vis-a-vis the Committee of Management constituted under the Scheme of Administration framed in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act or the Commission created under the U. P. Act 5 of 1982 is not such as might give rise to any conflict between the personal interest of a person placed in the position of the respondent No. 8 as teacher in a Higher Secondary School and his duties as a member of the Legislature and in this manner defeat the central object underlying the statutory disqualification. The acceptance of his nomination was, therefore, not improper.'
7. Nothing has been pointed by the petitioner's learned counsel to lead to a different opinion on this aspect of the matter All that was submitted by him was that the question is pending before the Supreme Court in another case and hence the proceedings in this petition be kept stayed For reasons recorded separately which need not here be reproduced, I have not been persuaded to accede to this requested the point being thus concluded by the aforementioned decision by this Court, the contention of the petitioner on this score cannot be claimed to provide a cause of action challenge the election of the respondent.
8. In regard to the ground No. (2) the substance of the averments contained in paras 22 to 42 of the election petition is this. The counting commenced at about 8 a.m. on 6th Mar 1985 The ballot papers to be counted were of 184 polling stations; the counting took place over 20 tables in 10 rounds and concluded at p.m. The tabulation was over at 9.30 p.m., the result was declared at 10 p.m. following. The irregularities alleged are to the effect that :--
(i) the seating arrangement for the counting was not proper. There was a distance of about 3 feet between the counting tables and the first row of the benches provided to the counting agents with ballis in between. Due to this the counting agents could not clearly discern the marks appearing on the ballot papers and effectively supervise the counting;
(ii) there were no trays provided on the tables for keeping the ballot papers separately after they were taken out of the ballot boxes and hence on many occasions the ballot papers of one candidate got mixed into the ballot papers of some other candidates and were counted as their votes.
(iii) the ballot papers were not scrutinized, sorted out and counted correctly; the number of votes were not correctly written in the relevant forms;
(iv) invalid votes -- in number given in Schedule 'A' to the petition were accepted in favour of the respondent I and the objection illegally rejected by the Returning Officer;
(iv) valid votes in the petitioner's favour on tables Nos. 7. 10, 12 numbering 40. 10. 8 respectively were rejected on untenable grounds;
(vi) the counting superisors or the Returning Officer did not permit any counting agents or the candidates to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers objected to;
(vii) the objection filed in writing and the petitioner's election agents application for recount of votes were illegally reacted.
9. Now, the law is not in doubt with respect to the essential requirements which the petitioner needs satisfy in order to secure inspection of the ballot papers or a recount thereof The election of the returned candidate may be declared void if the Court is of opinion that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void (vide Section 100(l)(d)(iii)) or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any rules framed there under (vide Section 100(1)(d)(iv)). The power of the Court trying an election petition to direct a recount or production of the ballot papers and permit their inspection by the parties flows from Sections 100(1)(d)(iii), 101, 102 of the Act and Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The election petition which has for its basis these statutory provisions must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and the petition-must be signed by the petitioner arid verified m the manner laid down for verification in the Civil P.C. (vide Section 83(l)(a)/(c)) The word 'material' in this context denotes that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact, it has been held, leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of the claim becomes bad. The entire and complete cause of action must be in the petition in the shape of material facts : Sarnant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201. I am entirely leaving out of consideration for this purpose the particulars referred to in Section 83(l)(b) because that pertains to corrupt practice which is not in issue so far as the claim for inspection of the ballot papers or the recount thereof is concerned.
10. To justify an order for the inspection of ballot papers, one of the conditions essential to be fulfilled is 'that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relics m support of his cause.'
'But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes wdl not be sufficient to support an order for inspection.'
(Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249). In that case this Court had relied upon certain observations appearing in Bhim Sen v. Gopali, 1961 22 ELR 288 (SC). The Supreme Court distinguished Bhim Sen pointing out that that case does not lay down any general principle that a party is entitled without making allegations of material facts in support of his plea to set aside an election to claim an order for inspection and seek to supply 'the lacuna in his petition by showing that if all the votes are scrutinized again by the Tribunal it may appear that there had been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes at time of counting. It was added :
'To support his claim for setting aside the election the petitioner has to make precise allegations of material facts which having regard to the elaborate rules are or must be deemed to be within his knowledge The nature of the allegations must of course depend upon the fact of each case But if material facts are not stated, he cannot be permitted to make out a case by fishing out the evidence from an inspection of the ballot papers'.
11. Their Lordships in this connection also made a pointed reference (o the provisions contained in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, (Rules 53, 55. 56, 57. 63) and the conclusion drawn on the basis thereof was :--
'There can therefore be no doubt Chat at every stage in the process of scrutirty and counting of votes the candidate or his agents have an opportunity of remaining present at the counting of votes, watching the proceedings of the returning officer, inspection of any rejected votes and to demand a recount. Therefore a candidate who seeks to challenge an election on the ground that there has been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinized and opened, and the votes were counted. He has also opportunity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a recount. It is in the light of the provisions of Section 83(1) which require a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and to the opportunity which a defeated candidate had at the time of counting, of watching and of claiming a recount that the application for inspection must be considered.'
12. The question arose again in Dr. Jagmjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773. The Supreme Court reiterated that : --
'Vague or general allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected, or invalidvotes were improperly accepted would not serve the purpose which Section 83(1)(a) has in, mind. An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in the interests of justice, the ballot boxes should be inspected or not. In dealing with this question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored, and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory rules framed under the Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting. It may be that in some cases, the ends of justice would make it necessary for the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and consider his objections about the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes tendered by voters at any given election; but in considering the requirements of justice, care must be taken to see that election petitioners do not get a chance to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the returned candidate's election is void.
13. The averment in the election petition in that case also was that a very large number of votes purported to have been cast in favour of the appellant had been improperly rejected, and that had materially affected the result of the election; there was also an allegation that a large number of votes which were invalid had been improperly accepted in favour of respondent and the Returning Officer disclosed a partisan attitude, and the counting and examination of votes was done in a very irregular manner (there is a striking similarity with the allegations made in the present election as appearing from paras 33 and 36 thereof). The Supreme Court took the view that the said allegations were very vague and general, and the whole objection of the appellant in asking for inspection was to make a fishing enquiry with a view to find out some material to support his case that the respondent 1 had received some invalid votes and that the appellant had been denied some valid votes.
14. The averments contained in the election petition in Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 were akin more or less to those we are concerned with.
The allegations as reproduced in para 2 of the reported judgment were : --
(1) only one counting agent was permitted at each table whereas three persons weredoing the counting work simultaneously and it was impossible for one man to look intoand detect the wrong acts of three persons at the same time.
Under this head it was further mentioned that the counting staff was from amongst the government servants who had gone on two months' strike before the election and during the elections they had adopted hostile attitude towards the congress candidates and had , made efforts to bring about their defeat :
(2) the bundles of votes of either candidates were neither properly made nor properly scrutinised;
(3) about 5,000 votes of the congress candidates were improperly rejected ignoring the protests of Mr. Malhotra the election agent of the congress nominee;
(4) invalid votes were counted in favour of the returned candidate. The votes of thecongress candidates were counted for the returned candidate.'
15. There was a Schedule appended to the petition showing the alleged improperly rejected as well as accepted votes pertaining to certain booths. The Supreme Court referred to the importance of maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers and after citing Ram Sewak Yadav and Dr. Jagajit Singh, (AIR 1964 SC 1249) (supra) with approval it laid down that : --
'In the instant case apart from giving certain figures whether true or imaginary the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. His bald assertion that he got those figures from the counting agents of the congress nominee cannot afford the necessary basis. He did not say in the petition who those workers were and what is the basis of their information. It is not his case that they maintained any notes or that he examined their notes, if there were any. The material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations made. In other words they must be such facts as to afford abasis for the allegations made in the petition. The facts stated in paras 13 and 14 of the election petition and in Schedule 'E' are mere allegations and are not material facts supporting those allegations. This Court in insisting that the election petitioner should state in the petition the material facts was referring to a point of substance and not of mere form. Unfortunately the trial Court has mistaken the form for the substance. The material facts disclosed by the petitioner must afford an adequate basis for the allegations made.'
16. Upon almost parallel allegations appearing then in Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Shri Sheo Shanker Prasad Yadav, (1973) 2 SCC 330 : (AIR 1973 SC 215), the Supreme Court observed that the averments were vague and the petition did not contain an adequate statement of material facts. A recount could not be granted as a matter of right but only on good grounds to believe that there had been a mistake in the counting. A mere doubt or small lead or unspecified blemish in the manner of the counting falls short of the needs of Rule 63. Frequent or flippant recount directed by the Court is apt to disturb the amount of stability in the election process in addition to exposing the secrecy of the ballot neither of which is desirable. The best surmise, if it be nothing more than surmise, it has been held, should not induce the Court to break open the ballot boxes. No doubt it would be a fair exercise of power if there is a serious flaw or travesty of the rules or gross interference but for this purpose there must be clear, cogent and material facts pleaded and then substantiated on evidence to constitute a prima facie, case. (Chanda Singh v. Ch. Shiv Ram Verma), (1975) 4 SCC 393 : (AIR 1975 SC 403). See also : S. Bajdev Singh v. Taja Singh Swatantra, (1975) 4 SCC 406 : (AIR 1975 SC 693); Baliram Bhalaik v. Jai Behariial Khachi, (1975) 4 SCC 417 : (AIR 1975 SC 283); Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, (1976) 1 SCC 687 : (AIR 1975 SC 2117); Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, (1975) 4 SCC 822 : (AIR 1975 SC 376); R. Narayanan v. S. Semunalai, (1980) 2 SCC 537 : (AIR 1980 SC 206); D. P. Sharma v. Commr. and R. O., AIR 1984 SC 654 at p. 656.
17. In the case of Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari, (1984) 1 SCC 91 : (AIR 1983 SC 1311) upon which the petitioner's counsel relies the pleading in para 9(i) of the petition was to the following effect : --
'On table No. 1 booth No. 10 (Fukbandi Primary School) 74 ballot papers of the petitioner were wrongly rejected on the ground that they did not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer. Similarly 31 ballot papers of the petitioner were rejected on different tables on the ground that they do not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer. The aforesaid ballot papers were rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer in spite of the objections raised by the petitioner and his counting agents.'
18. Referring to this it was observed that the number of ballot papers alleged to have been wrongly rejected had been furnished, the counting table number had been given, the booth number had also been disclosed and 'the ground for rejection had even been pleaded'. Respondent 1 had pleaded that the particulars of the ballot papers could not be obtained as during counting they were not shown. This was found substantiated upon evidence also and it was held accordingly that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not wrong in taking the view that the pleading in para 9(i) set out the material facts in a proper way. The pleading in the case before us, as well presently appear, stands on different footing. The noteworthy feature is that in Arun Kumar Bose, (AIR 1983 SC 1311) the plea raised was confined to one aspect viz. the want of the Presiding Officer's signature with reference to 74 ballot papers cast at a particular booth and counted on a particular table and the same had been rejected. This obviously was specific enough. The only specific detail which, the Supreme Court remarked, was wanting was the serial number of the 74 ballot papers. Upon evidence it was borne out that this particular was not available to the election petitioner in spite of attempts made on his behalf. It is in this background that their Lordships though expressly agreeing with the view expressed in Bhabhi's case (AIR 1975 SC 2117) (supra) felt inclined to think on the facts before them that the inspection had rightly been ordered. There is no departure on principle from the verdict in the cases preceding referred to above. In face of the facts pleaded including the ground for rejection of the ballot papers narrated in para 9(1), the specification of the particulars of the ballot papers remained only a matter of further detail, and this to my mind constitute a prominent distinguishing feature.
19. The trend reflected by the authorities thus definitely is that since an order for a recount touches upon the secrecy of the ballot papers and introduced the element of Uncertainty and also as there are abundant safeguards provided in this behalf under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the counting is entrusted to the technical hands, recount should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. The Court would not be justified to order recount or permit inspection of the ballot papers if all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded are not pleaded adequately in the election petition. Where the allegations are mostly general and vague floating on suspicions or belief of the petitioner and not precise or the inspection recount claimed tantamounts to seeking a roving inquiry of a fishing nature under the remote expectation of being benefited thereby. There is no firm foundation laid for the Court to interfere. The relief of recounting cannot be acceded to merely on the possibility of there being an error.
20. Let us in the light of the above scrutinise a little the averments made in this election petition the gist whereof is narrated above already. I will take them seriatim. The narration regarding (i) appears in paras 27/30 of the petition. The difficulty assigned therein is to the counting agents in observing the marks appearing on the ballot papers due allegedly to the seating arrangements resorted to. It is noticeable that while para 27 is verified by the petitioner on personal knowledge, the verification of para 30 is based on information received and believed to be true. There is no indication that any particular and if so which counting agent for or on behalf of the petitioner felt difficulty in viewing or taking note of the marks on the ballot papers on this account. Who is the counting agent, if any, that may have told the petitioner of this is unknown. Nor is it stated that any counting agent, or, even the petitioner for that matter, raised objection on this precise score at any stage during the counting spread over nearly 12 hours during the day. This is true substantially regarding (ii) as well the paras concerned being 29 and 31 in the petition. Para 29 which narrates mere absence of trays/pigeon holes in it itself inconsequential. The other para No. 31 recites altogether vaguely that on many occasions the ballot papers of one candidate got mixed into the ballot papers of some other candidates and were counted as votes of such other candidates. This contains no specification not even of the table numbers nor does the petition disclose that this was specifically made a point of objection. Both in form and substance this para verified on allegedly information received seems on its contents to rest purely on guess work. In Jitendra Bahadur Singh, (AIR 1970 SC 276) (supra) their Lordships also took note of the fact that the allegations made in the election petition purported to have been founded on the information given by others but no one takes responsibility for those allegations (page 280). The petitioner is not required certainly to state the evidence on which he relies but as the decision in Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2158 cited for the petitioner also affirms in a case where except vague and general allegations nothing specific has been stated, the Court does not allow to the party opportunity of a roving and fishing inquiry. The Court requires before it the precise material on the basis of which it could be urged with some substance that there has been either improper reception of invalid votes in favour of the elected candidate or improper rejection of votes in favour of the defeated candidate or wrong counting of votes in favour of the elected candidate which had in reality been cast in favour of the defeated candidate.
21. Regarding (iii) above the relevant averment of the election petition is in para 33, which reads : --
'That the counting at the counting tables was done in a reckless and haphazard manner. The ballot papers were not scrutinised, sorted out and counting incorrectly made. The number of votes received by variouscandidates, including the petitioner were not correctly written in the relevant forms.'
22. Obviously these averments are much too general and vague in character and amount only to certain accusations made by the petitioner rather than narrating a concrete set of material facts. The forms were open to inspection but there are not facts or dates given there from either. Regarding (iv) the allegation made in para 34 of the election petition is that invalid papers were improperly accepted as valid votes of the respondent 1. The counting agents of the petitioner allegedly raised objection against improper acceptance of the vote at the time of counting, but that was illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. In Schedule 'A' appended to the petition in this connection there are 13 different tables specified and the number of invalid votes allegedly accepted wrongly in favour of the respondent 1 is given. We do not have either in paragraph 34 or in the Schedule any specification of the ballot papers allegedly accepted wrongly nor is there a mention of the ground upon which it is claimed that the acceptance thereof was invalid. There is no, mention either of the ground taken in the objection allegedly filed before the Returning Officer challenging the validity of these ballot papers nor is a reference made to the counting agent who may have raised such objection. This is true also of para 36 concerning (v) mentioned above. In this paragraph the narration is that a large number of ballot papers containing valid votes in favour of the petitioner were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer on completely untenable grounds. Particulars given of those ballot papers under this same paragraph refer to three different Nos. 7, 10 and 12 and the number of ballot papers shown against these is 40, 10 and 8 respectively. These account for 58 votes only though the petitioner has chosen to describe them as a large number. It is remarkable that in this paragraph also there is no whisper of the ground upon which the rejection is asserted to be improper or of the precise nature of objection taken, if any, before the Returning Officer. This is apart from there being no specification of the ballot papers themselves. Para 36 is verified as 'partly' on personal knowledge by the petitioner and 'partly' on information received. There is no specification of the part which the petitioner affirms on his knowledge or of the part attributed to the information. Order VI, Rule 15(2), Civil P.C. (which as per Section 83(l)(c) of the Act) applies for purposes of verification of the petition, requires that the person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. There is no compliance made to this rule in the petition.
23. Learned counsel argued concerning (vi) aforementioned, in particular, that in para 37 of the election petition it has been pleaded that the counting agents of candidate were not permitted to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers. Para 37 is as follows : --
'That the counting supervisors on the counting tables did not permit the counting agents of any of the candidates to note down the serial numbers of the improperly rejected or accepted ballot papers or about which objections were raised, or which were of doubtful nature. Similarly, while giving his decision about the doubtful or disputed ballot papers and rejecting the ballot papers, the returning Officer also did not permit any counting agents of the candidates to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers rejected by him.'
24. I have carefully scrutinised this contention, but am unable to find any force therein. The para makes no mention of the counting agent who may have been prevented by the counting supervisors from making note of the serial number of the improperly rejected or accepted ballot papers. There is no specification of the concerned table either. The allegation is of a sweeping nature made wholesale. In the second sentence of this paragraph there is no reference either as to which counting agent was declined permission by the Returning Officer to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers rejected by him. It is not contended that any such objection was raised during the counting or immediately thereafter from the petitioner's side. The petitioner has chosen to leave the verification concerning this paragraph as well to guess work saying as he does that para 37 was being verified partly on his own knowledge and partly on information received without indicating the line of demarcation. It is undisclosed which part of this paragraph is verified in either of these two modes. There is no clarification as to how could the counting agents for the petitioner manage to gather total number of votes improperly accepted or rejected but remain unable to note down the serial number thereof.
25. Paras 38 and 39 pertaining to (vii), aforementioned, are also general in character containing no mention of the objection raised or being accompanied with a copy of the objection claimed to have been filed in writing but rejected by the Returning Officer.
26. In my opinion, for the discussion made in the above, the averments thus made cannot be said to constitute an adequate statement of the material facts for purposes of Section 83(l)(a) of the Act. Inspection or recount of the ballot papers cannot be directed by the Court on the mere expectation asserted in paragraph 41 of the petition that this will show 'all the aforesaid error and irregularities committed during the counting of votes'. That would be permitting the petitioner to indulge in a kind, of fishing enquiry which the law does not permit. In the absence of requisite foundation laid for the claim, the petitioner may not have the recount or the inspection made because of there being a chance that he would thereby be in position to expose certain irregularities or errors in the process of counting.
27. For the discussion made in the above none of the two grounds raised in the election petition furnish the required cause of action to be proceeded with as contemplated under Order VII Rule II/ Order VI Rule 16, Civil P.C. read with Section 83(1)(a) of the Act and hence the petition is, in my view, liable to be dismissed.
28. The petition is dismissed accordingly with costs to the respondent 1, which I assess at Rs. 500/- (five hundred) only.