A Clear Cause Of Action Pleaded: Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Rejection Of Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s Election Petition For Rajya Sabha Seat
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the application filed by BJP Rajya Sabha MP (Member of Parliament) Harsh Mahajan, seeking rejection of election petition of Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
The said application was preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) read with Section 151 CPC and Sections 81, 83, 86, and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed, “Petitioner/Non-applicant has made out a cause of action in his petition. Petitioner has alleged non-compliance of statutory provisions by the Returning Officer. According to the case set up by the petitioner: the RO had not acted as per mandate of Section 65 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; It is only this provision that expressly provides for the manner in which a candidate is to be declared elected in the given case of equality of votes. According to the petitioner, the Returning Officer had erroneously invoked Rules 75(4) and 81(3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 during Proceedings for Counting of Votes and has further pleaded that even these Rules were also not correctly applied. A clear cause of action has been pleaded.”
Senior Advocates P. Chidambaram, Prashanto Sen, and Neeraj Gupta represented the non-applicant/petitioner (Singhvi) while Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the applicant/respondent (Mahajan).
Brief Facts -
Singhvi and Mahajan had contested biennial elections to Rajya Sabha/Council of States in February this year from the single seat in the Himachal Pradesh State. They were the only candidates for the said seat and on counting, both secured 34 votes each. The Returning Officer (RO) proceeded to determine the result by draw of lots and he applied Rules 75(4) and 81(3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The lot fell on Singhvi’s name, however, instead of adding one vote to his tally of votes in terms of Section 65 of RP Act, the RO applied Rule 75(4) and added one vote to the kitty of Mahajan, who was consequently declared as the ‘returned candidate’.
Singhvi’s case was that he was wrongly excluded and Mahajan was wrongly declared as the returned candidate. He, therefore, sought to declare the election result as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of RP Act. He further sought relief of declaring him as election to Rajya Sabha from Himachal Pradesh as per Section 84 read with Section 101(a) of RP Act. Challenging his election petition, Mahajan had preferred an application seeking rejection of the same by the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The petitioner has specifically pleaded that the result of election petition has been materially affected due to flawed invocation of Rules 75 & 81 of the Rules and non- compliance of Section 65 of the Act that provides for the manner in which a candidate is to be declared elected in case of equality of votes.”
The Court noted that the petitioner’s case is that in case the name on the chit drawn in the lot had been given one vote as per Section 65 of the Act, then, he would have been declared elected and not the respondent. It added that in view of the case set up by the petitioner, it cannot be said at this stage that the result of the election had not been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance of the provisions.
“Election petition discloses all material facts as are required to be disclosed in law. No material fact upon which the petitioner/non-applicant relies, be it positive or negative, has been concealed in the petition. Law does not obligate the petitioner to project respondent’s case in his petition”, it further observed.
The Court further said that the question as to whether the actions of the petitioner during Proceedings for Counting of Votes, amount to consent/acceptance on his part to the procedure applied by the RO, and if so, what would be its effect upon the relief claimed by him; whether the petitioner is debarred in law to take the pleas/plead cause of action that: the RO had infracted Section 65 of RP Act; the RO had erroneously applied Rules 75(4) and 81(3) of the Conduct of Election Rules; and even the application of Rules applied by the RO was flawed; are to be considered & deliberated upon at an appropriate stage of the trial/petition.
“The case projected by the petitioner, viz. non-compliance of the provisions of the R.P. Act 1951 and/or completely flawed invocation of Rule 75(4) & 81(3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 by the RO, if ultimately found to be correct & legitimate, would definitely materially affect the result of election as in that situation, the declaration of respondent as the returned candidate would become illegal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application moved by the respondent/applicant (Harsh Mahajan).
Cause Title- Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi v. Harsh Mahajan (Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:8582)
Appearance:
Petitioner/Non-applicant: Senior Advocates P. Chidambaram, Prashanto Sen, Neeraj Gupta, Advocates Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Vedhant Ranta, Aman Panwar, Muddit Gupta, and Yash Johivi.
Respondent/Applicant: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Advocates Prabhas Bajaj, Ramgasaran Mohan, Virbahadur Verma, Vikrant Thakur, Shriyek Sharda, Shubham Guleria, and Ankit Dhiman.