Orissa High Court Dismisses Election Petition Against Dharmendra Pradhan

Non-compliance with mandatory provisions and absence of material facts lead to dismissal of election petition filed by Dr. Subash Mohapatra.

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, dismissed the election petition filed by Dr. Subash Mohapatra against Dharmendra Pradhan, citing non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions and lack of essential material facts. The petition challenged the election of Dharmendra Pradhan from the 03-Sambalpur Parliamentary Constituency, asserting allegations of corrupt practices and non-disclosure of information.

The court found that the election petition failed to meet the mandatory requirements outlined under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Specifically, the petition did not contain the necessary material facts and particulars required to constitute a cause of action, rendering it liable for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Justice Mishra emphasized that the allegations of corrupt practices were not substantiated with specific details such as dates, places, and names of individuals involved, as mandated by the Act. Additionally, the court noted that the affidavit accompanying the petition did not conform to the prescribed format under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which was deemed a curable defect but not fatal to the petition.

The petitioner's failure to file supporting documents and true copies of the election petition further contributed to the dismissal. The court underscored that these procedural lapses deprived the respondent of a fair opportunity to prepare a defense and also hindered the court from assessing the validity of the allegations.

Highlighting the serious nature of election petitions, the court reiterated the necessity for precise and complete pleadings, stating that the omission of even a single material fact could lead to an incomplete cause of action. Consequently, the court concluded that the election petition was frivolous and politically motivated, warranting its dismissal at the threshold.

In conclusion, the court's decision reinforces the stringent requirements for election petitions under Indian law, ensuring that they are not used for vexatious purposes without substantial evidence and clear articulation of claims.

Bottom Line:

Election Petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Rejection of Election Petition due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 83 of the R.P. Act, failure to plead material facts and particulars of alleged corrupt practices, and absence of supporting documents.

Statutory provision(s): Representation of the People Act, 1951 Section 81, 82, 83, 86, 100, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Order VI Rule 16 CPC, Rule 94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Dr. Subash Mohapatra v. Dharmendra Pradhan, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812320