1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13040-13042 OF 2018)

Patel Ahmed Mohammad ....Appellant

:Versus:

Balwant Singh Rajput & Ors. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order

dated 20

th April, 2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad, in Election Application Nos.2, 3 and 6 of 2017 in

Election Petition No.1 of 2017. By the said order, the High

Court dismissed all the three applications preferred by the

appellant seeking dismissal of Election Petition No.1 of 2017 at

the threshold.

2

3. Election Petition No.1 of 2017 has been filed by

respondent No.1 challenging the election of the appellant to

the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) held on 8

th August, 2017,

by the members of the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat, on the

ground that the appellant had committed corrupt practices of

„bribery‟ and „undue influence‟ within the meaning of sub-

sections (1) and (2) of Section 123 of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”) and also on the ground

that two valid votes were illegally and improperly rejected by

the Returning Officer and at the same time, two invalid votes

were accepted by the said officer, which has materially affected

the results of the election. The election petition came to be

filed on 18

th August, 2017 much before the last date of

limitation.

4. The appellant was served with the summons on 7

th

September, 2017 to appear in the election petition, pursuant

to the order of the High Court dated 21

st August, 2017. The

appellant filed his written statement on 4

th October, 2017 and

also filed the stated three applications for dismissal of the

3

election petition at the threshold. The first application was

numbered as Election Application No.2 of 2017, wherein the

appellant had prayed for dismissal of the election petition

primarily on the ground of non-compliance of Rules 282 (ii)

and (iii) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, as there was

no order to rectify such non-compliance as contemplated

under Rule 284 and the time provided therefor in the later

portion of Rule 283 had elapsed. In other words, the election

petition was required to be dismissed for non-removal of office

objections raised by the office/registry of the High Court, in

exercise of power under Rule 284 after recalling the order

dated 21

st August, 2017. The second application was

numbered as Election Application No.3 of 2017, praying for

dismissal of the election petition on the ground of non-

compliance of the provisions of the Act read with the Gujarat

High Court Rules, 1993, as well as the provisions of Order XIX

Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”). The grounds

urged in the application were ascribable to dismissal of the

election petition under Section 86(1) read with Sections 81(3),

83(1)(c) and 83(2) of the Act as well as the provisions of CPC

4

and the High Court Rules. The third application, being

Election Application No.6 of 2017, was also for dismissal of the

election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rules 11(a)

and (d) of CPC, for non-disclosure of the cause of action in the

election petition and the petition being barred by law. As

aforesaid, all the three election applications have been rejected

by the High Court vide common impugned judgment.

5. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said decision of the

High Court, has filed these appeals by special leave. We shall

deal with the challenge to the impugned judgment in reference

to the concerned application in seriatim.

6. Reverting to the first application i.e. Election Application

No.2 of 2017, the High Court, in substance, opined that the

averments in the said application preferred by the appellant

were vague and unsubstantiated. It found that the appellant

was not sure as to whether the office objections had been

removed or not, when the application was filed by him.

Further, there was no specific averment in the application as

to which objection raised by the office/registry of the High

5

Court was not removed. All that had been stated in the

application was that the objections which were raised by the

office were not removed, as no noting was found in the official

record to indicate that the same were duly removed before the

expiry of the limitation period. The ground urged by the

appellant did not commend to the High Court. For, the High

Court found that the same was based on mere conjectures and

surmises. The High Court instead found that as per Rule 284,

the matter was required to be listed before the High Court only

if the objections were not removed within the time fixed

therefor or as per the order, if any, passed by the Court under

Rule 283. On the other hand, the subject petition was placed

before the Court under Rule 285 which presupposes that it

was so done only after the office objections were duly cured. It

noted that if the matter was placed before the Court under

Rule 285 by the Office, it had to be presumed that the Office

had done so after due scrutiny of the petition and on being

satisfied that office objections had been duly removed.

Further, it was only an administrative function of the High

Court and could not be the basis to dismiss the election

6

petition at the threshold. The High Court also found that the

application under consideration was filed by the appellant one

month after the date of service of summons and that the plea

under consideration was not taken in the written statement

filed by the appellant on 4

th October, 2017. The High Court

concluded that in the absence of any positive statement in the

application filed by the appellant, as to which of the office

objections was not removed by the election petitioner

(respondent No.1) before the matter was placed before the

Court for consideration under Rule 285, the objection raised

by the appellant was replete with conjectures and surmises.

That could not be made the basis to dismiss the election

petition on the ground of non-removal of office objections. The

relevant extract of the impugned judgment dealing with this

aspect reads thus:

“32…….In the opinion of the Court there is basic fallacy in

the said submission. It appears that the applicant himself

was not sure as to whether the office objections were, in fact,

removed or not, when the Election Application No.2 of 2017

was filed by him inasmuch as there is no specific allegation

made in the application as to which objections raised by the

office/registry of the High Court were not removed, and it is

stated that “It appears that the objections which were raised

by the office were not removed”. The application appears to

7

have been filed on mere conjectures and surmises. That

apart, the office was required to be place the matter before

the Court for appropriate orders under Rule 284 only if the

objections were not removed within the time fixed or as per

the order, if any, passed by the Court under Rule 283.

33. The petitioner in the reply to the said application, while

denying the said allegation, has stated on oath that the

petitioner had removed all the objections before the petition

was actually placed before the Court for consideration.

Pertinently, the petition could be placed before the

Court for consideration under Rule 285, only after t he

removal of the office objections, otherwise the matter

would be placed for appropriate orders by the office for

non-removal of the objections as per Rule 284. No such

orders were sought by the office under Rule 284,

meaning thereby it has to be resumed that the office

after scrutiny of the petition, and after removal of office

objections by the petitioner had placed the matter for

consideration before the Court. As held by the Supreme

Court in case of Chandrakant Uttam (supra), the scrutiny

of election petition is one of the administrative

functions to be performed by the officers of the High

Court, and such an act would draw a presumption of

having been performed in terms of Section 114(e) of the

Evidence Act.

34. It is also pertinent to note that after the matter was

placed before the court as per the roster, the Court had

issued summons to the respondents on 21.08.2017,

directing the respondents to appear before the Court on

21.09.2017. Thereafter the learned Advocate Mr.

Champaneri appearing for the Respondent No.1 had stated

that he had filed a separate application seeking further time

to file written statement. Thereafter the matter was directed

to be placed on 06.10.2017. In the meantime, the

respondent No.1 had filed the written statement and the

present applications on 4.10.2017. At no point of time after

the filing of the appearance, the learned Advocate for the

applicant (original respondent No.1) had raised such

contention to the effect that the petition was placed for

consideration before the Court without removing all office

objections. It is true that on presentation of the petition on

18.08.2017, the office had pointed out the office objections

i.e. No.19, 22 and 23 listed in the prescribed check-list in

Form B. office objection No.19 is as to whether paging is

8

done; No.22 is as to whether copies are true, legible and

whether typed copies of any written annexures are filed, and

No.23a is as to whether copies are true copies signed by the

Advocate. The matter was permitted to be circulated before

the appropriate Bench on 21.08.2017. Hence, it is just

possible that the petitioner had removed the said office

objections before the matter was actually placed before the

Court for consideration on 21.08.2017. In absence of any

positive statement in the application filed by the applicant as

to which office objections were not removed by the petitioner

before the matter was placed before the court for

consideration, such application No.2 of 2017 filed merely on

conjectures and inferences could not be en tertained for

dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-removal of

office objections.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. The view so taken by the High Court has been assailed by

the appellant on the argument that the High Court could not

have presumed that office objections noted by the Registry of

the High Court on 18

th August, 2017, were duly removed.

Further, if the office objections had not been removed, it must

necessarily follow that the Registry could not have posted the

matter before the Court under Rule 285 but ought to have

proceeded under Rule 284 of the High Court Rules. In that

event, the office objections would remain valid and for which

reason the order passed on 21

st August, 2017, issuing

summons to the appellant to appear in the proceedings ought

9

to be recalled and the election petition dismissed for non-

removal of the office objections within the limitation period.

The respondent No.1, on the other hand, supported the view

expressed by the High Court in rejecting the application and

has reiterated the same argument before us.

8. The question is: whether the view taken by the High

Court as regards the rejection of Election Application No.2 of

2017 is just and proper? For that, we may first turn to the

averments in the application to discern whether the finding

recorded by the High Court is a possible view. The relevant

averments can be traced to paragraphs 10, 11 and 14 in

particular. The same read thus:

“10. It appears that after the election petition was filed, the

office/Registry of this Hon‟ble Court has raised several

objections which are more popularly referred to and known

as „office objections‟. That in terms of Rule 282 (ii) read with

Section 283, the same were bound to be removed by the

petitioner or his advocate on the 3

rd

day from the date of

presentation provided and stipulated under Rule 282 (ii). The

3

rd

day from the date of filing of the petition would fall on the

20

th

of August.

11. It appears that the objections which were raised by the

office were not removed and the election petition was placed

pursuant to the request made on the 18

th of August for

circulation on the 21

st

of August. Thus, in the respectful and

humble submission of the Applicant/Respondent No.1, there

is non-compliance of Rules 282 (ii) and 283.”

10

“14. In view of the office objections raised by this Hon‟ble

Court and the procedure prescribed under Rule 282 (ii) & (iii)

read with Rules 283a and 284 having not been adhered to, it

is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the order

passed by this Hon‟ble Court of the nature contemplated

under Rule 285 (i) dated 21

st

of August, 2017 of issuance of

summons was at a premature stage and, therefore, the

Applicant/Respondent No.1 respectfully begs to submit that

the said order be recalled and as the office objections, raised

by the office in the above captioned petition after it being

filed on 17

th

of August, 2017 not having been removed and

no time having been either granted or extended, the petition

ought to be and this hereby prayed to be dismissed for non-

compliance of Rules 282 (ii) & (iii) read with Rule 283 for

non-removal of office objections.”

9. From these averments in the application under

consideration, it is not clear as to which of the office objections

remained to be cured when the matter was placed before the

Court on 21

st September, 2017 under Rule 285 of the High

Court Rules. As aforesaid, the election petition was filed on

18

th August, 2017, on the same day the office objections were

noted by the Registry, as is noticed from Page 411 of the paper

book. It is also noticed at the bottom of that document in the

column of office objections, the numbers notified are only

serial Nos.19, 22 and 23. The said office objections are:

“19. Whether paging is done?

22. Whether copies are true legible and whether typed

11

copies of hand-written Annexure filed?

23. Whether the copies are true copies signed by the

Advocate?”

After mentioning the serial numbers of three office objections,

a further noting is found “(PC- with OO)”. In the first place,

this noting is evidently made on 18

th August, 2017. What is

relevant for our purpose is that the matter was processed by

the office under Rule 285 of the Gujarat High Court Rules,

1993 and placed before the Court on 21

st September, 2017.

On that date, the Court passed the following order:

“Date: 21/08/2017

ORAL ORDER

Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 86(1) of

the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 read with Rule 285

of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, office is directed to

issue summons as per the provisions contained in the

Rules, to the respondents to appear before the Court on

21.9.2017.”

10. In this backdrop, while rejecting the objection taken by

the appellant, the High Court opined that since the appellant

had come to the Court with an assertion that the office

objections remained to be cured before the limitation period,

he should have expressly stated as to which objection

12

remained to be cured and the source of his information. The

averments in the application, even if read as a whole and

liberally, do not even remotely suggest that such a case has

been made out. The High Court, therefore, relying on the

exposition of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Uttam

Chodankar Vs. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and Ors.

1

opined that the scrutiny of election petition is one of the

administrative functions to be performed by the office of the

High Court and such an official act would draw a presumption

of all necessary steps having been duly taken by the office and

being satisfied in that behalf, the matter was placed by the

office before the Court for appropriate orders under Rule 285.

11. We may usefully refer to the Rules of the High Court

which may have some bearing on the issue under

consideration, namely, Rules 282, 283, 284 and 285. The

same read thus:

““282. Petition.-

(i) Every application invoking the jurisdiction of the High

Court under section 80A of the Representation of the People

1

(2005) 2 SCC 188

13

Act, 1951, shall be by petition addressed to the Honorable

the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.

(ii) The petition shall comply with the provisions of

sections 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Act and the grounds on

which the relief are sought shall be clearly stated in the

petition which shall be arranged in suitable paragraphs

consecutively numbered. The relief sought should be set out

at the end of the petition.

(iii) The full names and the full addresses of all the parties

to the petition for service of any process shall be stated in

the petition. In addition to the permanent residence and

addresses of the respondent the present address of the

respondent at which service of the notice may be effected,

shall be stated in the petition.”

“283. Examination of petition.-

The office shall examine the petition with a view to see

whether it is in conformity with the requirements of law and

rules applicable to the same, and if it is not in conformity

with law and rules, raise objections which should be

removed by the party or the Advocate concerned. The office

shall complete the examination within two days after filing of

the petition and shall bring the office objections to the notice

of the party or the Advocate on the date fixed for attendance

under rule 282(ii) and such objections shall be removed,

subject to the orders of the Court, if any, within three days

thereafter.”

“284. Petition to be placed for orders if objection not

removed.-

Immediately after the expiration of time fixed for the removal

of objections, the petition shall be placed before the Judge

for appropriate orders.”

“285. Petition to be placed for orders after removal of office

objections.-

(i) After the removal of office objections, the petition shall

be placed before the Judge for consideration as to whether

the petition is liable to be dismissed under section 86(1) of

the Act. If the petition is not dismissed under section 86(1) of

the Act, the Judge shall direct issue of summons upon the

respondent; and the summons shall be issued to the

14

respondent to appear before the High Court on the date fixed

and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.””

12. On a bare perusal of the said Rules, it is evident that the

election petition is required to be placed for orders before the

Court by the office only after removal of office objections as per

Rule 285. If the office objections are pending and not cured

within the prescribed period, the office is obliged to list the

matter before the Court for appropriate orders under Rule

284. For that reason, the High Court opined that in the

absence of any positive statement in the application filed by

the election petitioner and as the record would show that the

matter was placed by the office before the Court under Rule

285, it must follow that the grievance made in the application

under consideration was based on mere conjectures and

surmises and cannot be the basis to di smiss the election

petition at the threshold, as prayed. We respectfully agree

with the said view taken by the High Court and as a result, the

order rejecting the application under consideration, being

Election Application No.2 of 2017, deserves to be upheld.

15

13. Reverting to the second application filed by the appellant,

being Election Application No.3 of 2017, the thrust of the

grievance was that the copy of the election petition served on

the appellant was not a true copy. It was not a copy attested

by the election petitioner under his own signature, much less

to be a “true copy” of the petition. Further, there were blanks

in the verification clause of the petition and the affidavit in

Form No.25 was not in conformity with the requirement of law.

Additionally, it was also urged that the election petitioner had

not filed as many copies of the election petition as there are

respondents mentioned in the election petition. The last point

raised by the counsel for the appellant came to be rejected by

the High Court on the finding that the same was not taken up

in the application filed by the appellant. In other words, it was

canvassed across the Bar for the first time. That being the

position, the High Court justly disallowed the said contention.

14. However, with regard to the other aspects raised in the

application, the High Court noted that the appellant did not

file the original copy of the election petition served on him, but

16

produced only a photocopy of the allegedly served copy of the

election petition along with the application filed for that

purpose, bearing Election Application No.3 of 2018. The High

Court noted that the only grievance of the appellant was that

the copy of the election petition served on him did not contain

the words: “True Copy”. That conte ntion was rejected by

placing reliance on the exposition of the Constitution Bench of

this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs.

Roop Singh Rathore

2

, Ch. Subbarao Vs. Member, Election

Tribunal

3 and in T.M. Jacob Vs. C. Poulos e and Ors.

4,

wherein it has been held that the real test of whether the copy

served is a “true one” is to find out whether any variation from

the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person and if

there is substantial compliance with the requirements of

Section 81(3) of the Act, the election petition cannot be

dismissed at the threshold.

15. We must agree with the High Court that to test the

arguments of the appellant as to whether the copy served on

2

(1964) 3 SCR 573

3

(1964) 6 SCR 213

4

(1999) 4 SCC 274

17

him was a true copy of the original election petition or

otherwise, it was imperative for him to produce the copy of the

petition actually served on him and not the photocopy thereof.

The grievance of the appellant that some blanks had been kept

in the verification clause or there were material discrepancies,

could be examined only if the copy of the petition actually

served on the appellant was produced before the Court. The

High Court could have non-suited the appellant on this sole

ground instead of examining the matter any further.

16. However, the grievance made before us by the appellant

is that the factual position recorded by the High Court in

paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment that the appellant

had not produced the copy actually served on him in the Court

is incorrect. In that, the appellant had submitted the

photocopy of the actually served copy along with Election

Application No.3 of 2018 and had also undertaken to produce

the original of the actually served copy at the time of hearing

and that the same was so produced at the time of hearing and

handed over to the High Court. This specific plea has been

18

taken in ground (u) of the special leave petition. In other

words, the High Court committed manifest error in that

regard. If that is so, it would be appropriate to relegate the

parties before the High Court for consideration of grievance

that the copy actually served on the appellant is not the true

copy within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act. We are

inclined to say so also because the plea taken by the appellant

before us is that the appellant had pointed out 20

discrepancies in the copy of the election petition served on him

and a chart whereof has been appended at Pages 855-867 of

Volume IV of the Special Leave Petition, which according to the

appellant, were material discrepancies warranting a finding

that the copy of the petition served on him was not a “True

Copy” within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act. We find

that the High Court has not dealt with this contention in the

impugned judgment at all. Even for this reason, the decision

of the High Court on the application under consideration,

being Election Application No.3 of 2017, will have to be set

aside and the parties will have to be relegated before the High

Court for its consideration afresh on its own merits in

19

accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we have

consciously avoided to advert to the rival pleadings and

submissions on the merits of this issue so that no prejudice is

caused to either party and the remanded Election Application

No.3 of 2017 can be decided de novo in accordance with law.

All contentions available to the respective parties in that

regard are kept open.

17. We may hasten to add that the question to be decided in

Election Application No.3 of 2017 for dismissal of the election

petition, will be limited to non-compliance of Section 81(3) and

the consequences flowing therefrom including under Section

86(1) of the Act. For, the dismissal of the election petition

under the latter provision is envisaged only on that count and

not in reference to some non-compliance of requirement under

Section 83 of the Act. This is the settled legal position.

18. As we are inclined to relegate the parties before the High

Court for consideration of Election Application No.3 of 2017

afresh in accordance with law, and in the event the appellant

is in a position to persuade the High Court to allow the said

20

application, the election petition will have to be dismissed at

the threshold under Section 86(1) read with Section 81(3) of

the Act. However, if that application fails, the appellant can be

permitted to reopen or revive the challenge to the issues raised

in Election Application No.6 of 2017 for dismissal of the

election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the CPC,

on the ground that the election petition does not disclose a

cause of action or that it is barred by law. In that eventuality,

the appellant may challenge the judgment rendered in the

remanded Election Application No.3 of 2017 and also have the

liberty to file fresh special leave petition against the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court in Election

Application No.6 of 2017. Further, both such special leave

petitions can be heard together. All questions in that regard

are kept open, to be decided appropriately if and when

occasion arises. For the time being, we do not wish to burden

this judgment with the said issues and leave it open.

19. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in the following terms:

21

(I) The judgment and order dated 20

th April, 2018

passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Election

Application No.2 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of

2017, is upheld and as a result thereof, the appeal

against that decision is dismissed.

(II) The judgment and order dated 20

th April, 2018

passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Election

Application No.3 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of

2017 is set aside and the parties are relegated

before the High Court for de novo consideration of

the said application which is restored to the file of

the High Court to its original number in terms of

this order. The High Court is requested to decide

the remanded application expeditiously, preferably

within one month. Hence, the appeal against the

decision on the Election Application No.3 of 2017 is

partly allowed.

(III) The appeal against the judgment and order dated

20

th April, 2018 passed by the High C ourt of

Gujarat in Election Application No.6 of 2017 in

22

Election Petition No.1 of 2017 is disposed of with

liberty to the appellant to challenge the selfsame

decision afresh in the event his remanded Election

Application No.3 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of

2017 is rejected. That special leave petition be

heard analogously with the special leave petition

against the order to be passed on Election

Application No.3 of 2017, should the need arise.

20. The appeals and the accompanying application(s) are

disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

.………………………….CJI.

(Dipak Misra)

…………………………..….J.

(A.M. Khanwilkar)

…………………………..….J.

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi;

September 26, 2018.