MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY versus BAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS .

MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY versus BAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS .

A copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate with omissions of names and material mistakes does not amount to a 'true copy' under section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such non-compliance is fatal and requires dismissal of the petition under section 86. Substantial compliance cannot be extended to cover vital or prejudicial mistakes.

Parties
Appellant: Mithilesh Kumar Pandey; Respondents: Baidyanath Yadav and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 January 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
True Copy Requirement, Dismissal of Election Petition, Compliance With Representation of the People Act, Corrupt Practices in Elections
Election Law True Copy Requirement Dismissal of Election Petition Compliance With Representation of the People Act Corrupt Practices in Elections

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mithilesh Kumar Pandey

Appellant

Baidyanath Yadav and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate must be an exact true copy under section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether substantial compliance is sufficient to avoid dismissal under section 86 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether mistakes in the copy supplied are sufficient to merit dismissal of the petition

Ratio Decidendi

A copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate with omissions of names and material mistakes does not amount to a 'true copy' under section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such non-compliance is fatal and requires dismissal of the petition under section 86. Substantial compliance cannot be extended to cover vital or prejudicial mistakes.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Election petition filed in the High Court is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.