1992 AIR(Bom) 227
Bombay High Court
Purshottam
Versus
Returning Officer, Amravati
Decided On:
Act
Referred
:CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES : R.94(a)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT : S.86, S.81(3), S.83
CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961
Rule 94-A.
See Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 83, 81 (3) and 86.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951,
Sections 83, 81 (3) and 86-Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Rule 24-A -Election petition-Absence of endorsement of Notary on copy of affidavit accompanying election petition-Renders copy as not conforming to requirement of Section 81 (3)-Election petition liable to be dismissed on account of that omission.
The absence of endorsement of the Notary "Affirmed and signed before me", his designation and the stamped endorsement regarding the affirmation, cannot be regarded as inconsequential. It is an omissions of a vital nature which is likely to prejudice the returned candidate.
It is no part of the duty of the Returning Officer to wane through the entire record in order to find out whether the copy supplied to him was a correct one or not. In the present case, in the absence of the endorsement of the Notary on the copy supplied to the returned candidate, it was not possible for him to know whether the affidavit was really sworn and if so, before whom it was sworn and on what date.
For Citation : AIR 1992 Bom 227
Rule 94-A.
See Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 83, 81 (3) and 86.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951,
Sections 83, 81 (3) and 86-Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Rule 24-A -Election petition-Absence of endorsement of Notary on copy of affidavit accompanying election petition-Renders copy as not conforming to requirement of Section 81 (3)-Election petition liable to be dismissed on account of that omission.
The absence of endorsement of the Notary "Affirmed and signed before me", his designation and the stamped endorsement regarding the affirmation, cannot be regarded as inconsequential. It is an omissions of a vital nature which is likely to prejudice the returned candidate.
It is no part of the duty of the Returning Officer to wane through the entire record in order to find out whether the copy supplied to him was a correct one or not. In the present case, in the absence of the endorsement of the Notary on the copy supplied to the returned candidate, it was not possible for him to know whether the affidavit was really sworn and if so, before whom it was sworn and on what date.
For Citation : AIR 1992 Bom 227