Case: Regu Mahesh @ Regu Maheswar Rao Vs. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev

2. Election was held to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 11.9.1999. The controversy in the present appeal relates to 10 Saluru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency which is reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribe. Respondent no.1 filed his nomination claiming to be a member of Schedule Tribe. His nomination was accepted and objections in his candidature were rejected. Nominations of some candidates were also rejected. Respondent no.1 after poll was declared elected in the election. The appellant filed election petition under Sections 5 and 100(1)(c) and (d)(i) of the Act before the High Court on 19.11.1999. Primary stand taken in the election petition appears to be that the claim of respondent no.1 that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe is not correct. Application was filed by present respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC) and Section 86 of the Act praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that locus of the petitioner was not established, no cause of action was disclosed and affidavit accompanying the petition was not in the prescribed form, verification done and the affidavit filed did not conform to the requirements as laid down in the statute in regard to alleged corrupt practice and, therefore, the same was misconceived and was liable to be rejected. Appellant filed his response to the application.3. On consideration of the rival stands the High Court came to hold that though essentially there was no definite allegation of corrupt practices, yet allegations that somebody played fraud and has approached the electorate claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and get selected are similar to, if not higher in gravity than alternations as to corrupt practices. The allegations are to be treated at par with those relating to corrupt practices. That being so it was held that the affidavit was not in the proper form and that election petition was not maintainable, as material facts were not pleaded, and merely some unreliable and improper averments were made and that required rejection of the petition. It was observed that the verification as required to be done in terms of Order VI Rule 15 CPC were not complied with. The verification was extremely vague and it was not stated as to what was the source of information on which pleadings were based and which part really was on the basis of personal knowledge and information was also not indicated. It was additionally noted that the petitioner was every casual in filing the election petition; even the district to which the election petitioner claimed to belong was described differently in the election petition. In conclusion it was noted by the High Court asThe Election Petition does not disclose a valid cause of action;(b) It contains several paragraphs which do not fit into an Election Petition filed under Sections 5 and 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act;(c) There does not exist any valid verification of the pleadings;(d) The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Election Petition does not conform to the Form prescribed (Form No. 25) under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in short the

Reasoning:
14. In R.P. Moidutty vs. P.T. Kunju Mohammad and another (2000 (1) SCC 481 ) it was, inter alia, held asthe averments made in paras 1 to 17 of the petition have been staged to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner and in the next breath the very same averments have been stated to be based on the information of the petitioner and believed by him to be true. The source of information is not disclosed. As observed by this Court in Singoras case (supra) the object of requiring verification of an election petition is to clearly fix the responsibility for the averments and allegations in the petition on the person signing the verification and at the same time, discouraging wild and irresponsible allegations unsupported by facts. However, the defect of verification is not fatal to the petition, it can be cured (See Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore (AIR 1964 SC 1545 and A.S. Subbaraj vs. M. Muthiah (5 ELR 21). In the present case the defect in verification was pointed out by raising a plea in that regard in the written statement. The objection was pressed and pursued by arguing the same before the Court. However, the petitioner persisted in pursuing the petition without proper verification which the petitioner should not have been permitted to do. In our opinion, unless the defect in verification was rectified, the petition could not have been tried.The case at hand has great similarly with the decision in R.P. Moiduttys case (supra). Not only defects in the verification/affidavit were pointed out, but they were pressed into service seeking dismissal of the election petition. The appellant stated in his reply that he was filing separate petition with permission for leave of the High Court for amending the verification. But that was not done and the appellant continued to stick to his stand that since corrupt practice was not alleged, there is no need for making any amendment.18. The casual approach of the appellant is not only visible from the manner in which verification was done, but also from the fact that he has mentioned two different districts to which he claims to be belonging. The explanation that the same was given by mistake is too shallow when considered in the background that he is stated to be a practicing advocate. An advocate is supposed to know the importance of verification and the desirability of making statement of correct facts in any petition and more in case of an election petition. An election petition is intended to bring to focus any illegality attached to an election. It essentially and basically puts a question mark on the purity of election, casts doubt on fairness thereof and seeks a declaration that mandate of people has been obtained by questionable means. In a democracy the mandate has sacrosanctity. It is to be respected and not lightly interfered with. When it is contended that the purity of electoral process has been polluted, weighty reasons must be shown and established. The onus on the election petitioner is heavy as he has to substantiate his case by making out a clear case for interference both in the pleadings and in the trial. Any casual, negligent or cavalier approach in such serious and sensitive matter involving great public importance cannot be countenanced or glossed over too liberally as for fun.19. Above being the position, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dismissing the election petition; though we have not approved or affirmed some of the reasons for conclusion arrived at by the High Court,