Supreme Court of India
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHUversusOM PARKASH SONI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 990
- Decided
- 26 October 2016
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- RANJAN GOGOI
Holding
The petition disclosed triable issues regarding advertisement expenses and assistance from a gazetted officer, but lacked full particulars for public‑meeting expenses, which were struck out, and the vote‑counting allegation was held academic.
Summary
The 2009 Lok Sabha election for Amritsar was challenged in an election petition alleging three categories of corrupt practice: excess election expenditure on newspaper advertisements, excessive spending on public meetings, and assistance from a gazetted officer, along with a grievance about the Returning Officer's handling of vote counting. The High Court held that all three categories disclosed triable issues and ordered a trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the petition satisfied the requirement of Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act to disclose material facts and full particulars. It found that the advertisement expenses were detailed enough to warrant a full trial, but the public‑meeting expenses lacked the necessary particulars and therefore did not disclose a triable issue. The allegation of assistance from a gazetted officer was also held to require trial, while the complaint about vote counting was deemed academic due to the expiry of the parliamentary term. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, striking out the public‑meeting allegation and directing the trial to continue on the remaining issues. The decision clarifies the evidentiary standards for election petitions under the R.P. Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the election petition disclosed sufficient material facts and full particulars under Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act for alleged excess advertisement expenditure.
- Whether the petition provided adequate particulars for alleged excess expenditure on public meetings to constitute a triable issue.
- Whether assistance obtained from a gazetted officer, transferred to a state post, amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the R.P. Act.
- Whether the allegation concerning the Returning Officer's action on vote counting is academic and non‑justiciable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII rule 11, s. Order VI rule 16
- Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 123(7), s. 77(3), s. 83(1)(b)
Subjects
election petitioncorrupt practiceRepresentation of the People Actelection expensesadvertisement expenditurepublic meeting expensesgazetted officer assistancetriable issueSection 83Section 123
Judgment
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 766
A NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU
v.
OM PARKASH SONI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. l 0353of2016)
B OCTOBER 26, 2016
(RANJAN GOGOi AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
Election Laws - Election petition - Application u!Or. VI, 1: 16
and Or. Vil, r.11 of CPC by the returned candidate - Seeking
dismissal of petition as no triable issues were disclosed in the
c pleadings - The Court held that three broad categories of a/legations
(viz. Corrupt practice, seeking assistance of Gazetted Officer for
furthering election prospects and action taken by Returning Officer
on complaint regarding counting of votes) in the petition disclosed
triable issues - On appeal, held: As regards allegation of corrupt
D practice, in respect of expenditure on advertisement in Newspapers
all the material facts with full particulars as required uls. 83(1)(b)
of Representation of People Act have been furnished and hence the
same is required to go for full-fledged trial - But in respect of
a/legation a/expenditure in public meetings full particulars of the
material facts are lacking, and thus the allegation do not disclose
E
the triable issues - The allegations as regards taking assistance of
Gazetted Officer also requires full trial - Third allegation (as regards
counting of votes) is not with regard to commission of corrupt
practice and by ejjlux of time the issue has become academic, hence
not required to go into - Representation of People Act, 1951 -
F s. 83(1J(b) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 01: VI, r.16, 01: VII,
r.11.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per s. 83(1)(b) of Representation of the
People Act, 1951, in case of an Election Petition founded on
G allegations of cormpt practice, not only the 'material facts' have
to be pleaded, but even the full particulars thereof have to be
furnished at the stage of filing of the Election Petition itself. In
paras 10 and 11 of the present election petition, the dates on
which the advertisements had appeared; the particulars of the
H newspapers in which such advertisements were published; the
766
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARK.ASH SONI & ORS. 767
cost incurred for each type of advertisement in each newspaper, . A
have all been mentioned. When details to the above extent have
been mentioned in the Election Petition, it cannot be said that
full particulars as required under Section 83(l)(b) have not been
furnished by the election petitioner. The averments made with
regard to election expenses in paragraph 10 and 11 of the Election
8
Petition require to go for a full-fledged trial. [Paras 9, 10, 11]
(777-C-F; 778-C]
1.2 In paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition, the
respondent-election petitioner, by giving details of expenditure
incurred by the appellant in connection with public meetings held
on different dates and in different venues, has pleaded that the c
expenses incurred on these public meetings is much more than
what has been shown in the return of election expenses under
. the said head (Rs.1,83,466/-). While the details of the meetings
i.e. the time, date and venue are mentioned and so is the number
of persons who are claimed to have attended the meetings, but D
there is no basis as to how the elec_tion petitioner had arrived at
the quantum of expenses which he alleges to have been incurred
by the returned candidate in holding each of the said meetings. _
What are the source(s) of information of the election petitioner
with regard to the details furnished; whether he has personal
knowledge of any of the said meetings; who are the persons who E
informed him of the details of such meetings; what is the basis of
the estimate of the number of persons present and the facilities
(chairs etc.) that were hired and the particulars of the refreshments
served are nowhere pleaded. All such particulars that are an
integral part of the allegation of corrupt practice alleged arc F
absent. In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, the allegations
made in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition do not
disclose any triable issue so as to justify a regular trial of the said
allegations. The allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12 to 15,
so far as commission of corrupt practice of submission of
false/incorrect return of election expenses is concerned, are, G
therefore, struck off. [Para 12] [778-D-H; 779-A]
Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCR 782 : 1986
(Supp) SCC 315; Ramakant Mayekar v. Celine D 'Silva
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 492 : (1996) 1 sec 399 -
distinguished. H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.
A Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh and. Ors. 2006
(10) Suppl. SCR 413 : (2007) 3 SCC 617 - referred
to.
2. So far as second category of allegations are concerned,
the pleadings contained in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the Election
Petition makes it clear that it is alleged that the appellant had got
B
a gazetted officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board, transferred
to the gazetted post under the State of Punjab and that the
appellant had received assistance from him so as to further his
election prospects. The allegation in the Election Petition is that
the post to which the officer was transferred from the Punjab
c State Electricity Board was under the State Government and the
assistance received by the returned candidate from the said
person is while he was performing the duties in the State
Government. If that be so, the aforesaid issue also will have to
go for a full trial as ordered by the High Court. (Para 15) (779-
F-H]
D
3.. The third allegation pertains to the action taken by the
Returning Officer on the complaint filed by the election petitioner
with regard to counting of votes. Thus, the allegation is not one
with regard to commission of any corrupt practice. Hence by efflux
of time the said issue has become academic, rendering it
E unnecessary for the Court to enter into any discussion on the
said question. [Para 16] [780-A-B]
Case Law Reference
1986 SCR 782 distinguished Para7
F 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 492 distinguished Para7
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 413 referred to Paras
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I 0353
of2016.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.20 I 0 of the High Court
at Chandiagarh in Election Petition No. 3 of2009.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kalia,
Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur, Advs. for appellant.
V. K. Sidharthan, Ms. Sridevi V. S., Raajan Soni, Advs. for
H Respondents.
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARK.ASH SONI & ORS. 769
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this Court is the returned candidate in the
election held on lJ•h May, 2009 for the 02-Amritsar Parliamentary
Constituency. The election was challenged in E.P. No.3 of2009 before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appellant, as B
the respondent in the Election Petition; had filed av application under
Order VI rule 16 and Order VII rule II of the Code'of'Civil Procedure,
I 908 for dismissal of the election petition conte_l)ding that on account of
deficiencies in the pleadings no triable issue(s) is disclosed to justify a
regular trial of the allegations made. According to the appellant the election c
petition, in its entirety, had failed to disclose any cause of action
whatsoever. Though some relief(details of which need not be noticed)
was granted to the appellant by the High Court, three broad categories
of allegations contained in the election petition were held to disclose
triable issues. Hence a regular trial of the same was ordered by the
High Court by the order under challenge. Aggrieved, this appeal has D
been filed.
3. We have heard the. learned counsels for the parties.
4. The three broad categories of allegations which, according to
the High Court, gave rise to the triable issues may now be dealt with in E
seriatim. . _.,.-
5. The first is with regard to incurring of expenditure in
contravention of the limit prescribed under Section 77(3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ~·R.P.
Act"). The gravamen of the allegation on the aforesaid score is as
F
follows:
According to the election petitioner, the appellant had, in his return
of election expenses, shown a total expenditure of Rs. I 7,03,665/-. He
had shown expenditure ofRs.3,31,054/- on account of campaign through
electronic/print media (including cable network). The election petitioner
G
has contended that the said return of__ ,..:.·expenditure is not correct.
6. In paragraph 9 of the Election Petition the rates of
advertisement in different newspapers like 'The Daily Ajit', 'Punjab
Kesari', 'Dainik Bhaskar', 'Jag Bani' have been shown along with a
statement that during election time the said charges are 25% more. In
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.
A paragraph 10 of the election petition, the details of the advertisements
published/issued by the appellant in different newspapers during the period
between 22"d April, 2009 to 13th May, 2009 are mentioned along with the
details of expenditure incurred. On the basis of the figures mentioned in
paragraph I 0 of the Election Petition, it is contended that the actual
expenses incurred by the returned candidate on advertisements alone is
B
Rs.32,88,845/- which is in excess of the total prescribed limit of
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakh). In paragraph 11 of the
Election Petition, the details of the expenditure incurred by the returned
candidate/appellant on advertisements on local T. V. channels, etc. are
also mentioned. The specific pleadings in this regard as contained in
c paragraph I 0 and 11 may set out herein below for clarity:
"10. That the details of advertisements by Respondent No. I, the
returned candidate, in different newspapers and their expenses,
during the period from the date of his nomination i.e. 22.4.2009 to
13.5.2009 i.e. the date of polling are as under:
D s. Date wf Name of the Page Size of Rate Amount
No. PubIica- Newspapen No. Advertise- (In
tion ment Rupees)
l. . 22.04.2009 Ajit 7 22 x 12 = 180 47,520
204
E 2. 22.04.2009 Dainik 2 16.5 x 18.5 = 664 2,02,686
Bhaskar 305.25
3. 22.04.2009 Dainik I 24 x 12 = 166 47,808
Jagran 288
F 4. 22.04.2009 Tribune 3 10 x 12 = 852 1,02,240
120
5. 23.04.2009 Ajit 7 a) 33 x 10 =
330 (B/w) 90 29,700
b) 20 x 14 =
280 180 50,400
G
6. 23.04.2009 Dainik 3 25 x 32 = 747 5,97,600
Bhaskar 800
7. 23.04.2009 Punjab 1 16 x 24.5 = 225 88,200
Kesari -Amr. 302
H
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. 771
[RAN JAN GOGOi, J .]
8. . 24.04.2009 Jag Bani 2 10 x 16 87.5 14,000 A
(B/w) = J60
9. 25.04.2009 Aiit 7 J2x9=108 J80 J9,440
JO. 25.04.2009 Punjab 2 J2 x 5 (B/w)
Kesari =60 125 7,500
JI. 26.04.2009 Ajit 7 J6.5 x 20 = J80 59,400
8
330
12. 26.04.2009 Jag Bani 1 J7 x 16 = 150 40,800
272
8 x 3 (B) = 87.5 2,IOO
13. 27.04.2009 Jag Bani 2
24
c
J4. 28.04.2009 Ajit 7 29 x JO = 180 52,200
290
J5. 28.04.2009 Dainik 2 20 x IO = 664 J,32,800 D
Bhaskar 200
J6. 30.04.2009 Ajit 7 15 x 8 (B) = J80 2J,600
120
17. 30.04.2009 Jag Bani J JOx 12 = J20 J50 J8,000
(Local)
a)8x5=40 125 5,000 E .
2· b)J6 x 6 = 96 125
c)J6 x 6 = 96 125 12,000
J2,000
J8. 01.05.2009 Jag Bani I 20.5x9=
184.5 150 27,675
F
2 a) 8 x 5 (B) =
40 87.5 3,500
b) 16 x 6.5
(B) = 104 87.5 9,100
19. 01.05.2009 Punjab 1 20x9=180 225 40,500 G
Kesari
20. 02.05.2009 Ajit 7 4 x 4 (B/w) =
16 90 1,440
8 16.5. x 12 =
J98 90 J7.820 H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.
A 21. 02.05.2009 Jag Bani 2 a)8 x 5 (8) =
40 · 87.S. 3,500
b) 8 x 5 (8) 87.S
=40 3,500
B Jag Bani 8x5(8)= 87.S 3,500
22. 03.05.2009 2
40
23. 04.05.2009 Ajit 11 a) 8x 6 (8)=
48 90 4,320
c b) 8 x 6.5 (8)
=52 90 4,680
'
c) 8 x 6.5 (8)
=52 90 4,680
D d)8x7(8)
=56 90 5,040
e) 8x 9(8)=
J ,, 72 90 6,480
f) 8 x 6 (8) =
E 48 90 4,320
g) 8 x 7 (B) =
56 90 5,040
24. 04.05.2009 Jag Bani 1 33x5=165
ISO 24,750
F 12 x 8.5 (8)
2 = 102
87.5 8,925
25. 04.05.2009 Amr. Kesari I 33x5=165
Party 225 37,125
G SXS=40
2 162. 6,500
5
26. 05.05.2009 Ajit 7 33x8(8)=
264 90 23,760
,~X-.-
H
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. 773
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
27. 05.05.2009 Jag Bani 2 a) 8 x 5(8) = A
40 87.5 3,500
b) 12 x 6.5
(8) = 78 87.5 6,825
28. 06.05.2009 Ajit 7 a) 33 x 13
(8) =429 90 38,610 B
,.
29. 06.05.2009 Jag Bani 2 a) 8 x 5 (8) =
40 87.5 3,500
b) 8 x 6 (8)
=48 87.5 4,200
c
30. 07.05.2009 Ajit 7 a) 12 x 7 (8)
=84 .
90 7,560
b) 12 x 9 (8)
=108 90 9,720
o·
31. 08.05.2009 Ajit 7 33x13 (8) =
429 90 38,610
8 8 x 10 (8) = 7,200
80 90
E
32. 08.05.2009 Jag Bani 1 33x9(P)=
297 150 44,550
F
2 a) 8 x 7 (8) =
56 125 . 7,000
b) 8 x 10 (8)
' =80 87.5. 7,000
c) 8x 5 (8) = G
40 87.5 3,500
d) 8 x5.5 (8)
=44 87.5 3,850
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.
A O'J.05.200') Ajit 7 a) 8x 9(8) =72 90 6,480
33.
b)8 xS (8) =40
90 3,600
c)8x 10(8)=80
B cl) 33 x 8 (P) = 264 90 7,200
90 23,760
34. O'J.05.200') Jag Bani 3 12x10(8)=120 100 12,000
c 35. 10.05.200') Ajit l a) 12x9(8)=108 90 9,720
b)8x 10(8)=80
90 7,200
c) 16 x 12(8)=192
7 90 17,280
D
36. 10.0S.200'J Jag Bani 3 12x 10(8)= 120 100 12,000
37. 11.05.200'J Ajit 8 a) 12 x8=96 180 17,280
I
.. b)20x 10=200 180 36,000
E
I
38. 11.05.200') Jag Bani 2 a) 16x6(8)=96 87.5 8,400
b) 24.5x8(8)=196 87.5 17,150
F 39. 12.05.200') Ajit 7 a) 16x19=304 180 54,720
40. 12.05.200') Jag Bani 1 33x9=297 150 44,550
a)8x4(8)=32 125 4,000
2
G b)8x4.5(8)=36
87.5 3,150
c) 12x9(8)=108
87.5 9,450
H
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. 775
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
41. 13.05.2009 Ajit 7 a)8x5(8)= 90 3,600 A
40
b) 20.5 x 16
(8)=328 90 29,520
42. 13.05.2009 Jag Bani - 1 a) 16 x 25 = 150 60,000 B
Local 400
b) 12 x 12 = 300 43,200
144 (H)
(Hang)
c) 4x5=20 150 3,000
c
d) 16 x 13 =
208 150 31,200
8x6(8)=
2 48 87.5 4,200 D
lUfAL 19,16,234
"11. The Respondent No. I, the returned candidate, also displayed
E
an advertisement of 70 seconds on Metro/Filmy channel and
Movies channel ofSiti Cable/Digi Cable in Amritsar. The charges
are Rs.825 for 30 seconds on Metro/Filmy channel and Rs.900/-
per 30 seconds on Movie Channel during the period 22.4.2009 to
13.5.2009 between 8 AM to 10 P.M. The Adve11isement was
displaced for 18 times on each channel. The details of the same F
are as under:
s. Nanr of Duration of Ratel Tutal No. of Almunt
No. Oiannel dip(Sec.)
.
sec. of No. of tllrei of
&lad days ~
am per day
~) G
1. ----
~-
. 70 1.7.5 22 18 762300
2. MMe 70 30 22 18 8.31600
1UOO.. 15,93900''
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.
A 7. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that under the provisions of Rules of Procedure
and Guidance in the matter of Trial of Election Petitions Under Part VI
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended (Clause 12)
and specifically Form 'B' and Form 'BB' prescribed thereunder, it is
necessary for the election petitioner to enclose along with the Election
B
Petition all relied upon documents in the form(s) prescribed. In the present
case, the required information as per the forms prescribed had not been
furnished by the election petitioner. Shri Vikas Singh has further argued
that under Section 83 of the R.P. Act an Election Petition founded on
allegations of corrupt practice has to contain a concise statement of the
c material facts and is also required to set forth full particulars of any
corrupt practice that the election petitioner alleges. In addition, an affidavit
in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of corrupt practice
and the particulars thereof is also required to be furnished. Relying on
two decisions of this Court i.e. Azliar Hussai11 vs. Rajiv Gandl1i1 and
Ramakm1t Mayekar vs. Celine D 'Silva1 it is argued that in the present
D
case it was incumbent upon the election petitioner to enclose with the
Election Petition photocopies of the relevant newspapers containing the
advertisements mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Election Petition. The
foundation of the Election Petition being the advert~ements contained in
the said newspapers in the absence thereof the necessary cause ofaction
E to justify a full-fledged trial would be absent and, therefore, the Election
Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
8. We have considered the aforesaid submission made on behalf
of the appellant. What is the meaning of the expression 'material facts'
and 'material particulars' need not engage any further attention of the
Court in view of the long line of decisions/precedents available on the
F point out of which illustratively reference can be made to the decision of
this Court in the case of Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Sin2h and
Ors.3 • Paragraph 50 of the said decision in Virender Natl1 (supra),
which is extracted below, would highlight the distinction between the
two e~pressions.
G "50. There is distinction between facta probanda (the facts required
to be proved i.e. material facts) and facta probantia (the facts by
means of which they are proved i.e. particulars or evidence). It
is settled law that pleadings must contain only facta probanda and
'. _1986 (Suppl !lee 315
2 (1996) 1sec399
H ' (2007) 3 sec 617
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. 777
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
not facta probantia. The material facts on which the party relies A
for his claim are called facta probanda and they must be stated in
the pleadings. But the facts or facts by means of which facta
probanda (material facts) are proved and which are in the nature··
of facta probantia (particulars or evidence) need not be set out in
the pleadings. They are not facts in issue, but only relevant facts
B
required to be proved at the trial in order to establish the fact in
issue."
9. Virender Natlt Gautam (supra) dealt with an Election Petition
that did not have any allegation of corrupt practice and therefore the
contents thereof were examined in the context of the requirement under
Section 83 (I) (a) and not Section 83 (I) (b) of the Act of 1951. In case
c
of an Election Petition founded on allegations of corrupt practice not
only the 'material facts' have to be pleaded but even the full particulars
thereof have to be furnished atthe stage of filing of the Election Petition
itself. This is specifically provided for in Section 83( I )(b) of the R.P.
Act. D
JO. Reading the averments made by the election petitioner in
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Election Petition, extracted above, in our
considered view, it cannot be said that full particulars of the allegation of
corrupt practice have not been set out by the election petitioner. The
dates on which the advertisements had appeared; the particulars of the E
newspapers in which such advertisements were published; the cost
incurred for each type of advertisement in each newspaper, have all
been mentioned. When details to the above extent have been mentioned
in the Election Petition, it cannot be said that full particulars as required
under Section 83(l)(b) of the R.P. Act have not been furnished by the
election petitioner. F
11. The insistence on furnishing photocopies of the newspapers
alongwith the Election Petition on the strength of the decisions of this
Court in Az/1ar Hussain(supra) and Ramakant Mayekar(supra) will
now have to be dealt with.
G
In Az/1ar Hussain(supra), the posters in question which were
not furnished along with the Election Petition, itself, contained the
ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged. Hence the failure of the
election petitioner to include the said posters as a part of the Election
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.
A Petition was held to be fatal. Similarly, in Rllmllkllnl Mllyekllr(supra)
the pleaded case of the election petitioner was that the returned candidate
had used posters, banners and wall-paintings canvassing for votes in the
name of Hindu religion. The election petitioner specifically averred that
he had taken photographs of the wall-paintings which, however, were
not enclosed to the Election Petition. The Election petitioner in the said
B
case had prayed for leave to produce the same at a later stage of the
case. It is in the above situation, namely, where the wall-paintings itself
contained the ingredients of the commission of corrupt practice alleged
that the non-furnishing of the same along with the Election Petition was
held to be fatal. The above is not the situation in tlie present case. We,
c therefore, hold that the averments made with regard to election expenses
in paragraph I 0 and 11 of the Election Petition require to go for a full-
tledged trial and the appeal insofar as the aforesaid part of the decision
of the High Court has to fail.
12. In paragraphs 12 to I5 of the Election Petition, the respondent-
D election petitioner, by giving details of expenditure incurred by the appellant
in connection with public meetings held on different dates and in different
venues, has contended that the expenses incurred on these public
meetings is much more than what has been shown in the return of election
expenses under the said head (Rs.1,83,466/-). While the details of the
meetings i.e. the time, date and venue are mentioned and so is the number
E
of persons who are claimed to have attended the meetings, we do not
find any basis as to how the election petitioner had arrived at the quantum
of expenses which he alleges to have been incurred by the returned
candidate in holding each of the said meetings. What are the source(s)
ofinformation ofthe election petitioner with regard to the details furnished;
F whether he has personal knowledge of any of the said meetings; who
are the persons who informed him of the details of sucb meetings; what
is the basis of the estimate of the number of persons present-and the
facilities (chairs etc.) that were hired and the particulars of the
refreshments se..Ved are nowhere pleaded. All such particulars that are
an integral part of the allegation of corrupt practice alleged, are absent.
G
In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, there can be no doubt
that insofar as the allegations made in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election
Petition is concerned, the same do not disclose any triable issue so as to
justify a regular trial of the said allegations. The allegations mentioned in
paragraphs 12 to 15, so far as commission of corrupt practice of
H
NAYJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. 779
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
submission of false/incorrect return of election expenses is concerned, A
are, therefore, struck off.
13. This will take the Court to the second category of allegations
on which the Election Petition is founded. The same is with regard to the
assistance allegedly received by the appellant, as the returned candidate,
from one Jagjit Singh Suchu. The specific case of the respondent-election B
petitioner in the Election Petition filed is that Jagjit Singh Suchu was
posted as the Grid Executive Engineer, Amritsar and he is a gazetted
officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board. Shri Suchu was transferred,
at the instance of the appellant, as Additional Superintending Engineer,
East Division, Yerka Circle, Amritsar which is a gazetted post in the
State of Punjab. It is also alleged that the returned candidate i.e. the
c
appellant had taken the help ofShri Suchu while he was working in the
said capacity so as to further the appellant's election prospects. The
detailed pleadings in this regard are contained in paragraphs 17, 18, 19
and 20 of the Election Petition. We have perused the said pleadings.
14. The contention advanced on behalfofthe appellant is that the D
aforesaid Jagjit Singh Suchu, on the pleadings of the election petitioner
himself, is admittedly a gazetted officer of the Punjab State Electricity
Board and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 123(7) of the R.P.
Act, prior to its amendment by Act 41 of 2009 with effect from 1' 1
February, 20 I 0, the assistance of Jagj it Singh Suchu, even if obtained, E
did not amount to corrupt practice inasmuch as the said person was not
in service of the Government.
I 5. The pleadings contained in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the Election
Petition makes it clear that it is alleged that while Jagjit Singh Suchu was
an officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board the appellant had got F
him transferred to the post of Additional Superintending Engineer, East
Division, Yerka Circle, Amritsar under the State of Punjab and that the
appellant had received assistance from him so as to further his election
prospects. The allegation in the Election Petition is that the post to which
Jagjit Singh Suchu was transferred from the Punjab State Electricity
Board was under the State Government and the assistance received by G
the returned candidate from the said person is while he was rendering
service as Additional Superintending Engineer, namely, while he was
performing the duties in the State Government. ff that be so, the aforesaid
issue also will have to go for a full trial as ordered by the High Court.
The appeal to the aforesaid extent will, therefore, have to be dismissed. H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.
A 16. Insofar as the third allegation of the election petitioner is
concerned, we are of the view that it would not be necessary for us to
deal with the said question. The said allegation pertains to the action
taken by the Returning Officer on the complaint filed by the election
petitioner with regard to counting of votes. The election took place in
the year 2009. The life of the House for which the election took place
B
has long expired. The third allegation is not one with regard to commission
of any corrupt practice. Hence by efflux of time the said issue has become
academic rendering it unnecessary for us to enter into any discussion on
the said question.
17. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeal is partly
c allowed to the extent indicated above. The trial of the election petition
on the issues/allegations that survive in terms of the present order will
have to recommence. We order accordingly.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal partly allowed.
D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "election petition"Sign in to search