ASHOK versus RAJENDRA BHAUSAHEB MULAK

ASHOK versus RAJENDRA BHAUSAHEB MULAK

Majority: The essential, basic facts relating to the charge were stated in the petition with sufficient clarity; specific identification of which candidate received the disputed votes is not an essential requirement at the threshold. This matter involves a serious issue under Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and should be tried on merits, not dismissed summarily for absence of material particulars. Dissent: Without pleading that the invalid votes were cast in favour of the successful candidate, the petition fails to disclose a cause of action. Mere margin of votes is insufficient; it must be specifically asserted and proved that the improper votes benefited the...

Parties
Appellant: Ashok; Respondent: Rajendra Bhausaheb Mulak
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench After Divergent Opinions
Outcome
Reference to larger Bench due to conflicting judicial opinions
Legal Topics
Election Petition, Improper Reception of Votes, Material Particulars in Election Petitions, Conduct of Election Rules, Representation of People Act
Election Law Election Petition Improper Reception of Votes Material Particulars in Election Petitions Conduct of Election Rules Representation of People Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok

Appellant

Rajendra Bhausaheb Mulak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench After Divergent Opinions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of specific averment that invalid votes were cast in favour of the respondent is fatal to the election petition
  2. 2 Whether the alleged breach of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 r.39 (5) to (8) and improper reception of votes, without material particulars, is sufficient to disclose a cause of action under the Representation of People Act, 1951

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The essential, basic facts relating to the charge were stated in the petition with sufficient clarity; specific identification of which candidate received the disputed votes is not an essential requirement at the threshold. This matter involves a serious issue under Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and should be tried on merits, not dismissed summarily for absence of material particulars. Dissent: Without pleading that the invalid votes were cast in favour of the successful candidate, the petition fails to disclose a cause of action. Mere margin of votes is insufficient; it must be specifically asserted and proved that the improper votes benefited the...

Court Disposition

Reference to larger Bench due to conflicting judicial opinions

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside by the majority; election petitions restored for trial on merits by the High Court; matter referred to a Three-Judge Bench for resolution of the conflict.