Petition No 1 of 1987
Election Petition under Section 16 17 18 19 and 20 of Part III of the Petitioner in person Mithilesh Kumar
K Parasaran Attorney General TS Krishnamurthy Iyer Krishnamurthy Swami and Miss A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The above petition is filed by the petitioner Shri Mithilesh Kumar under the provisions of the Act No 31 of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act  calling in question the validity of the election of Shri R Venkataraman the 1st respondent herein as the 528 President of India at the election held in July 1987 for electing the President of India and praying for a declaration that he is the successful candidate at that election
There were three candidates at the election namely Shri R Venkataraman respondent No 1 Shri VR Krishna Iyer respondent No 2 and Shri Mithilcsh Kumar the petitioner
The result of the election was declared on 1671987 by the Returning officer for Presidential Election 1987 respondent No 4 declaring Shri R Venkataraman respondent No 1 as the President of India
The Act was passed in the year 1952 for the purpose of regulating certain matters relating to or connected with the elections to the offices of the President and the Vice President of India
Part II of the Act contains the provisions relating to the conduct of Presidential and Vice Presidential elections and Part III of the Act sets out the provisions relating to the settlement of disputes regarding elections to the offices of the President and the Vice President of India
Section 14 of the Act provides that no election should be called in question except by presenting an election petition to the authority specified in subsection 2 and the authority having jurisdiction to try an election petition under the Act is specified as the Supreme Court of India by sub section 2
Sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act requires that an election petition should be presented to the Supreme Court of India in accordance with the provisions of Part III of the Act and of the rules made by the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of the Constitution of India
Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Rules  made under Article 145 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in this behalf by the Supreme Court of India contains the provisions relating to the election petitions filed under Part III of the Act
Section 14 A of the Act provides that an election petition calling in question an election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Subsection 1 of section 18 and section 19 to the Supreme Court by any f candidate at such election or in the case of Presidential election by twenty or more electors joined together as petitioners and in the case of Vice Presidential election by ten or more electors joined as petitioners
Such petition may be presented at any time after the date of the publication of the declaration containing the name of the elected candidate at the election under section 12 of the Act but not later than thirty days from the date of such publication
Section is of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of Part III of the Act rules made by the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of the Constitution of India may regulate the form of election petitions the manner in which 529 they are to be presented the persons who are to be made parties thereto the procedure to be adopted in connection therewith and the circumstances in which petitions are to abate and to be withdrawn and in which new petitioners may be substituted and may require security to be given for costs
Rule 3 of order XXXIX of the Rules prescribes that a court fee stamp of the value of rupees two hundred and fifty shall be paid on the election petition and the election petition will be signed by the petitioner or petitioners if they are more than one or a duly authorised advocate on record on his or their behalf
Rule 4 of order XXXIX of the Rules provides that the petition shall be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively each paragraph being confined to a distinct portion of the subject and shall be printed or typed legibly on one side of standard petition paper demy foolscap size or of the size of 297 cm
x 21 cm
Or on paper of equally superior quality
Rule 5 of order XXXIX of the Rules requires that the petition shall state the right of the petitioner under the Act to petition the Court and briefly set forth the facts and grounds relied on by him to sustain the reliefs claimed by him
The allegations of fact contained in the petition shall be verified by an affidavit to be made personally by the petitioner or by one of the petitioners if there are more than one as provided under rule 6 of order XXXIX of the Rules
The grounds on which the election of the returned candidate at the Presidential or the Vice Presidential election can be declared void are set out in section 18 of the Act Section 18 of the Act reads thus  181
If the Supreme Court is of opinion a that the offence of bribery or undue influence at the election has been committed by the returned candidate or by any person with the consent of the returned candidate or b that the result of the election has been materially affected ii by the improper reception or refusal of a vote or ii by any non compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act or iii by reason of the fact that the nomination of any 530 candidate other than the successful candidate who has not withdrawn his candidature has been wrongly accepted or c that the nomination of any candidate has been wrongly rejected or the nomination of the successful candidate has been wrongly accepted the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void
2 For the purposes of this section the offences of bribery and undue influence at an election have the same meaning as in Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code
 Section 19 of the Act sets out the grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected
Section 19 of the Act reads thus
Grounds for which a candidate other than the re turned candidate may be declared to have been elected
If any person who has lodged an election petition has in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the Supreme Court is of opinion that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes the Supreme Court shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate as the case may be to have been duly elected Provided that the petitioner or such other candidate shall not be declared to be duly elected if it is proved that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election
 Section 18 of the Act is exhaustive of the grounds on which the election of the President or the Vice President can be declared void
Under section 181a an election of the President or of the Vice President may be set aside if it is established that the offence of bribery or undue influence as explained in Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal 531 Code had been committed by the returned candidate or by any person with the consent of the returned candidate
In order to succeed on the grounds mentioned in section 181a of the Act it has to be established that the offence of bribery or undue influence had been committed at the election by the returned candidate himself or by any person with his consent
Originally when the Act was enacted section 181a of the Act read thus  181
If the Supreme Court is of opinion a that the offence of bribery or undue influence at the election has been committed by the returned candidate or by any person with the connivance of the returned candidate or          The word connivance  in section 181a of the Act was substituted later on by Parliament when the former Part III of the Act was substituted by the present Part III of the Act by the Presidential and the Vice Presidential Elections Amendment Act 1977 to bring it in line with the provisions of section 1231 and 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 which contain the grounds of bribery and undue influence which would vitiate the election to either House of Parliament or to the Houses or House of the State Legislatures as the case may be
Clause b of section 181 of the Act contains three grounds the proof of any of which would result in the election being declared void provided it is established that the result of the election has been materially affected thereby namely i the improper reception or refusal of a vote or ii any non compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or of any rules or orders made under the Act or iii wrongful acceptance of the nomination of any candidate other than the successful candidate who has not withdrawn his candidature
Clause c of section 181 of the Act provides that if the nomination of any candidate has been wrongly rejected or the nomination of the successful candidate has been wrongly accepted the election of the returned candidate is to be declared void
These are the only grounds on which the election of the returned candidate can be declared void under the Act
Section 19 of the Act as stated already contains grounds for declaring a candidate other than the returned candidate as duly elected
It should he stated at the outset that the manner in which the 532 present petition has been drafted is not in accordance with the Rules
Ordinarily the petition should state in a narrative form succinctly and clearly all the facts as may be necessary to enable the respondents and the Court to understand the case of the petitioner
This is not the case here
The first part of the petition contains 13 questions and the answers given by the petitioner to those questions
A reading of all these 13 questions and answers given thereto by the petitioner shows that the only ground on which the petitioner wished to call in question the election of the 1st respondent is that the issue of a whip by the Congress I Party to its legislators on the eve of the election asking them to cast their votes in favour of the 1st respondent was in the nature of a threat amounting to undue influence which is one of the two grounds set out in section 18 Ia of the Act
The allegations made in this part of the petition suggest that the specific case of the petitioner is that the said act of undue influence had been committed by the members of the Congress I Party
There is no allegation that any act amounting to undue influence was committed either by respondent No  himself or by any other person with his consent
Even in the second part of the petition which is entitled Notable points  and the third part of the petition containing grounds to declare the election of the returned candidate as void there is no averment that either the returned candidate himself had committed any act of undue influence or any other person had committed any act of undue influence with his consent
The fourth part of the petition contains grounds to declare the petitioner as duly elected
It is alleged in this part that by reason of the issue of the whip by the Congress I Party andor by other parties the votes which would have been cast in his favour had been grabbed by the other candidates
The fifth part of the petition contains the reliefs sought by the petitioner and the last part contains the prayer for an interim order directing the staying of the oath ceremony of the returned candidate which had been fixed to take place on the 25th of July 1987
There is no reference to any other ground mentioned in section 18 of the Act on the basis of which the election can be set aside
After the petition was presented to this Court notice was issued to the respondents and also to the Attorney General of India as pro 533 tion is liable to be rejected at this stage itself since it does not disclose any cause of action
Rule 34 of order XXXIX of the Rules provides that subject to the provisions of order XXXIX of the Rules or any special order or directions of the Court the procedure on an election petition shall follow as nearly as may be the procedure in proceedings before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
Order XXIIl of the rules contains the rules of pleadings in cases filed under the original jurisdiction of this Court
Rule 6 of order XXIII of the Rules states that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law
It is stated in the preliminary objections of the 1st respondent and the preliminary submissions of the Attorney General of lndia that since no where in the election petition the petitioner has stated that the offence of undue influence had been committed by the 1st respondent or by any other person with his consent and since no other ground specified in section 18 of the Act has been pleaded the petition is liable to be rejected under rule 6 of order XXIII of the rules even assuming that all that the petitioner has stated in his petition is true
After the preliminary objections of the 1st respondent and the preliminary submissions of the Attorney General of India were filed the case was taken up for hearing on the said preliminary objections and preliminary submissions
The petitioner Shri Mithilesh Kumar in person Shri TS Krishnamurthy Iyer learned counsel for respondent No 1 and Shri K Parasaran learned Attorney General of India were heard
The issue which arises for consideration in this case is whether the election petition is liable to be rejected under rule 6 of order XXIII of the Rules on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action
The question of law involved in this case is no longer res integra
In Charan Lal Sahu vs Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy  the petitioner in that petition had questioned the election of Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as the President of India
In that decision this Court held that it was obligatory upon the Court to reject a petition outright and not to waste any more time upon a plaint or petition if the provisions of law bar or are shown to bar the proceedings
The Court proceeded to hold that it was not even necessary to issue notice to any opposite party or parties in such a case
The next decision in Charan Lal Sahu  others vs Giani Zail Singh  Another 198412 SCR 6 534 deals with facts which are very close to the facts of the present case
In A the said case two issues arose for consideration i can the election of a candidate to the of fice of the President of India be challenged on the ground that he is not a suitable person for holding that office and ii whether the averments in that election petition assuming them to be true and correct disclose any cause of action for setting aside the election of the returned candidate on the ground stated in section 181a of the Act
This Court observed in that case that the rights arising out of elections including the right to contest or challenge an election were not common law rights but they were creatures of the statutes which created conferred or limited those rights
Therefore for deciding the question whether an election can be set aside on any alleged ground the court has to consult the provisions of law governing the particular election
The Court has to function within the framework of that law and cannot travel beyond it
The Court proceeded to observe in the above decision thus at Pages 22 to 24 Nor is it alleged that the offence of undue influence was committed by the returned candidate himself
The allegation of the petitioners is that the offence of undue influence was committed by certain supporters and close associates of Respondent 1 with his connivance
It is patent that this allegation even if it is true is not enough to fulfil the requirements of section 181a
What that section to the extent relevant requires is that the offence of undue influence must be committed by some other person with the consent  of the returned candidate
There is no plea whatsoever in the petition that undue influence was exercised by those other persons with the consent of Respondent 1
It is contended by Shri Shujatullah Khan who appears on behalf of the petitioners that connivance and consent are one and the same thing and that there is no legal distinction between the two concepts
In support of this contention learned counsel relies upon the meaning of the word connivance  as given in Webster s Dictionary Third Edition Volume 1 p 481 Random House p 311 Black s Law Dictionary p 274 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 8A p 173 and Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 15A p 567
The reliance on these dictionaries and texts cannot carry the point at issue any further
The relevant question for consideration for the 535 decision of the issue is whether there is any pleading in the petition to the effect that the offence of undue influence was committed with the consent of the returned candidate
Admittedly there is no pleading of consent
It is then no answer to say that the petitioners have pleaded connivance and according to dictionaries connivance means consent
The plea of consent is one thing the fact that connivance means consent assuming that it does is quite another
It is not open to a petitioner in an Election Petition to plead in terms of synonyms
In these petitions pleadings have to be precise specific and unambiguous so as to put the respondent on notice
The rule of pleadings that facts constituting the cause of action must be specifically pleaded is as fundamental as it is elementary Connivance  may in certain situations amount to consent which explains why the dictionaries give consent  as one of the meanings of the word connivance 
But it is not true to say that connivance  invariably and necessarily means or amounts to consent that is to say irrespective of the context of the given situation
The two cannot therefore be equated
Consent imply that parties ad idem
Connivance does not necessarily imply that parties are of one mind
They may or may not be depending upon the facts of the situation
That is why in the absence of a pleading that the offence of undue influence as committed with the consent of the returned candidate one of the main ingredients of section 181a remains unsatisfied
The importance of a specific pleading in these matters can be appreciated only if it is realised that the absence of a specific plea puts the respondent at a great disadvantage
He must know what case he has to meet
He cannot be kept guessing whether the petitioner means what he says connivance  here or whether the petitioner has used expression as meaning consent 
It is remarkable that in their petition the petitioners have furnished no particulars of the alleged consent if what is meant by the use of the word connivance is consent
They cannot be allowed to keep their options open until the trial and adduce such evidence of consent as seems convenient and comes handy
That is the importance of precision in pleadings particularly in election petitions
Accordingly it is impermissible to substitute the word consent  for the word connivance which 536 occurs in the pleadings of the petitioners
The legislative history of the statute lends support to our view that for the purposes of section 181a connivance is not the same thing as consent
Originally when the Act was passed in 1952 section 181a provided that the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the re turned candidate void if it is of opinion that the offence of bribery or undue influence has been committed by the re turned candidate or by any person with the connivance  of the returned candidate
This sub section was amended by section 7 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elec tions Amendment Act S of 1974 which came into force on March 23 1974
The word connivance  was substituted by the word consent  by the Amendment Act
If connivance carried the same meaning as consent and if one was the same as the other Parliament would not have taken the deliberate step of deleting the word connivance  and sub stituting it by the word consent 
The amendment made by the Amendment Act of 1974 shows that connivance and consent connote distinct concepts for the purpose of section 181a of the Act
Since admittedly there is no pleading in the Election Petition that the offence of undue influence was committed with the consent of the returned candidate the petition must be held to disclose no cause of action for setting aside the election of the returned candidate under section 181 a of the Act
 We have given above a fairly long quotation from the above decision because it contains all the reasons necessary to decide this case too
We do not propose to repeat them
They are applicable to this case also
In the petition before us there is not even an allegation that the act of undue influence had been committed by some persons with the connivance of the 1st respondent
The petition is as bald as it could be
At the hearing after getting the entire petition read out the Court asked the petitioner to point out whether there was any allegation that the 1st respondent had himself committed any undue influence or any other person with the consent of the 1st respondent had committed such an act or any allegation which required to be tried and the petitioner was not able to point out any part of the petition in which such an allegation had been made
In view of this infirmity we 537 have not found it necessary to examine whether the issuing of the whip by any political party amounts to undue influence vitiating an election even when such an act is committed by the returned candidate or with his consent by some other persons
In the circumstances the Court has no choice except to reject the petition as required under rule 6 of order XXIII of the Rules as it does not disclose any cause of action
Before concluding we should observe that the petitioner did not appear to be quite serious about his case
At one stage he contended having himself filed the petition before the Court that this Court had no competence to hear the case and at another stage he wanted 51 Judges to hear his petition when the maximum permissible strength of this Court is about one half of that number and the existing strength of this Court is less than one third of that number
Rule 20 of order XXXIX of the Rules requires that every petition calling in question an election to the offices of the President and the Vice President shall be posted before and be heard and disposed of by a Bench of this Court consisting of not less than five Judges
While we expect every conscientious citizen eligible to file an election petition to question an election on the grounds prescribed by the Act we do not wish that any petitioner should make use of this Court as a forum to file a petition without giving adequate thought to its contents and also to the provisions of law governing the case merely to seek some cheap publicity
We regret to say that seeing one s name in newspapers everyday has lately become the worst intoxicant and the number of people who have become victims of it is increasing day by day
We however refrain from referring to some other irrelevant and unwarranted statements made by him before this Court orally and in writing
Perhaps the petitioner who desired to become the President of India did not understand the effect of what he was saying
We shall leave it at that
The petition is therefore rejected
HLC Petition dismissed


Summary:
 In a writ petition the petitioner challenged the price fixation on the ground that the State Government had not taken into consideration the guidelines in built in sub section 3C of section 3 of the  that the levy order was unreasonable or excessive restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 191g and 14 of the Constitution and that the levy was a colourable exercise of the power as the State Government sold the levy sugar by public auction realising large profit
Dismissing the Writ Petition  HELD 11 The Court does not act like a Chartered Accountant nor acts like an Income Tax officer
The Court is not concerned with any individual case of any particular problem
The Court only examines whether the price determined was with due regard to considerations provided by the statute and whether extraneous matters have been excluded from determination
580D E Union of India vs Cynamide India Ltd AIR 1987 Sept SC 180  at 1805
followed
12 The primary consideration in the fixation of price would be 578 the interest of consumers rather than that of producers
581F Since the petitioners in the instant case are allowed to sell freely at any rate they like the remaining 50 of the Sugar after excluding the 50 which they have to give for levy as also the produce by the second and third process the loss if any caused to the petitioners would be minimal
581Gl New India Sugar Works vs State of Uttar Pradesh  Ors   relied
13 It is clear from the Preamble that the primary object of the was to control production supply and distribution of essential commodities and to make such commodities available at a reasonable price
The exercise provided under the Act was intended ultimately to serve the interest of consumers
It is fundamental in the entire scheme of the Act
But then the interest of the industry as a whole cannot be left out
It is also required to be borne in mind
The levy price of sugar should ensure reasonable return to the industry
That is one of the guidelines provided under sub section 3C of section 3 of the Act
But that does not mean that the interest of producers should outweigh the interest of consumers
It would be tilting the balance too much
582C F 14 There is no colourable exercise of power
There was every justification for the sale by public auction
The petitioner and some other producers delivered inferior quality of Khandsari which was found to be unacceptable to consumers at Fair Price Shops
The State officers accordingly reported to the Government which issued instructions to distribute the levy sugar liberally through permits for marriages and religious functions
The consumers however could not come forward
The Government then directed the disposal of levy sugar by public auction
It was not with a view to earn profit although incidentally the Government made some profit
The levy sugar was brought to public sale only to prevent deterioration when the consumers refused to accept it
583A C The Panipat Co operative Sugar mills vs Union of India 197312 SCR 860 and Anakapalle Coop
 Industrial Society Ltd vs Union of India  Ors
   referred to