Election Petitions Remitted for Final Disposal; HC Directed to Resolve Within Four Months, Appeals Allowed Without Cost Order.

The SC set aside the HC's judgments, remitting the election petitions for final disposal. The HC was directed to resolve the petitions within four months, permitting respondents to file written statements within three weeks of judgment receipt. The appeals were allowed, with no order regarding costs, emphasizing procedural compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election petitions were barred by limitation.
2. Whether the election petitions were liable to be rejected for non-compliance with sections 81(3), 83(1)(a)(c), and 83(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Whether the election petitions were liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-disclosure of any cause of action.

Summary:

Issue 1: Limitation
The High Court held that the election petitions were not barred by limitation. Since no cross-objection or appeal was filed by the respondent No.1, the Supreme Court did not examine this issue further.

Issue 2: Non-compliance with Sections 81(3), 83(1)(a)(c), and 83(2)
The High Court divided this issue into three parts:
(i) Whether the copies of the election petitions supplied were true copies.
(ii) Whether the appellants served the required number of copies to the respondents.
(iii) Whether the verification of the election petitions was proper.

The High Court rejected the election petitions on the grounds of non-compliance with section 81(3) and section 83(1)(c). The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court erred in relying on the copies alleged to have been supplied by the Registry. It was held that true copies were served by the Court Bailiff after the limitation period, and there was no material to show that true copies were not filed at the time of presentation. The defects noted by the High Court, such as missing signatures and stamps, were not considered vital enough to reject the petitions.

Issue 3: Non-disclosure of Cause of Action
In the appeal of Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar, this issue was not pressed before the High Court. In the appeal of Jose Philips Domingo D'Souza, the High Court held that the petition was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with section 83(1)(c). The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the verification defects were not fatal to the maintainability of the petition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and remitted the matters back for final disposal of the election petitions. The High Court was directed to dispose of the petitions within four months and allow the respondents to file their written statements within three weeks from receiving the judgment. The appeals were allowed without any order as to costs.

---