Haribhau Madhav Javle vs Ramesh Vithal Choudhari and Others

S.P. Bharucha J.-We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that there is no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court declining to dismiss the election petition at the preliminary stage.

It appears to us that the election petition does not contain any allegation which can be said to fall within the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that, therefore, an affidavit that meets the requirements of the proviso to Section 83 was not necessary.It is not disputed, in the second place, that the xerox copies of the originals in Marathi of the annexures to the election petition that were furnished to the appellant (elected candidate) were duly signed, verified and endorsed, as required by Section 81(3). These xerox copies were accompanied by English translations and what is contended is that the translations had not been signed, verified and endorsed as required by Section 81(3). The election petition would have been complete if served on the returned candidate without the translations. We do not, therefore, think that the fact that the translations that were given were not signed, verified and endorsed as required by Section 81(3) is an objection that can be sustained or lead to the dismissal of the election petition.

In the third place, it is correct that the election agent of the election petitioner had stopped the re-counting of invalid votes for the reason that he was satisfied that there could be no objection in that behalf, but that does not, in our view, stop the election petitioner from contending, having regard to what has been stated in the election petition, that there should be a re-count of all the votes that were cast.

The civil appeal is dismissed. The election petition shall now be heard and disposed of expeditiously. No order as to costs.