CASE BRIEF: Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia & Ors – (2001) 1 SCR 17

Case Brief
Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia & Ors – (2001) 1 SCR 17
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
Dr. A.S. Anand CJ , R.C. Lahoti , Shiva Raj V. Patil JJ.
Date of Judgment
3^rd January 2001
Facts of the Case
This was an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the RPA, for short) by a candidate who won at the election but has lost in the election petition.
The facts leading to the same being-
Elections for the legislative seat of No.216, Sabang Legislative Assembly Constituency in the district of Midnapore, West Bengal were held in May, 1996. There were four candidates in the fray. The appellant secured 60453 votes.The respondent no.1 secured 59628 votes. The other two candidates received 594 and 453 votes respectively. On 12.5.1996 the appellant was declared elected by a margin of 825 votes over his nearest rival, the respondent no.1.
On 17.6.1996, the respondent no.1 filed an election petition laying challenge to the election of the appellant and seeking a declaration that the result of the election was void. A declaration that the respondent no.1 was duly elected was also sought for. On trial the High Court allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the appellant declaring the same to be void. No other direction has been made. The appellant and two other candidates who had contested the election were only arrayed as the respondents in the election petition filed before the High Court.
The principal ground on which the election of the appellant was sought to be set aside was that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected by corrupt practices committed in the interests of the returned candidate by the agents other than his election agent within the meaning of Section 100 (1)(d) (ii) of the RPA. The election petition alleged commission of corrupt practices as defined in sub-sections (2) (4) and (7) of Section 123 of the RPA.
Judgment
The High Court recorded a finding of corrupt practices having been committed at the election. The names of persons who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of commission of the alleged corrupt practices and the nature of such practices has also been recorded. The applicability of sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 99 (quoted supra) was clearly attracted. The High Court however, did not issue any notice to any person found and named in its judgment as having committed corrupt practice.
I.A.No.3 of 2000 was filed by Shri Basudeb Bag and I.A. No.4 of 2000 was filed by Shri Nilanjan Chatterjee who was appointed as returning officer for the election in question by the Election Commission of India. Both the officers sought for being impleaded as party-respondents or as intervenors in the appeal so as to lay challenge to the findings recorded and adverse remarks and observations made in the judgment under appeal which if not expunged may adversely affect service careers of the applicants. Their grievance was that they were not joined as parties to the election petition, they had no opportunity of hearing as they were never put on notice by the High Court and they have been condemned unheard.
It was observed by this Hon’ble Court that the opportunity which a party to the petition had at the trial to defend against the allegation of corrupt practice is to be given by such a notice to that person of defending himself if he was not already a party to the petition. In other words the noticee has to be equated with a party to the petition for this purpose and is to be given the same opportunity which he would get if he was made a party to the petition.
In Manohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 169, this court laid down the procedure which should be followed by the High Courts while disposing of such an election petition pointing out the fatal effect which non-compliance would have on the judgment of the High Court declaring void an election of the returned candidate. It was held-“Section 98 contemplates the making of an order thereunder in the decision of the High Court rendered at the conclusion of the trial of an election petition. There is nothing in Section 98 to permit the High Court to decide the election petition piecemeal and to declare the election of any returned candidate to be void at an intermediate stage of the trial when any part of the trial remains to be concluded.”
The High Court cannot make an order under Section 98 recording a finding of proof of corrupt practice against the returned candidate alone and on that basis declare the election of the returned candidate to be void and then proceed to comply with the requirement of Section 99 in the manner stated therein with a view to decide at a later stage whether any other person also is guilty of that corrupt practice for the purpose of naming him then under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. The High Court has no option in the matter to decide whether it will proceed under Section 99 against the other persons alleged to be guilty of that corrupt practice along with the returned candidate inasmuch as the requirement of Section 99 is mandatory since the finding recorded by the High Court requires it to name all persons proved at the trial to have been guilty of the corrupt practice.
Therefore, the election of the appellant in the present case could not be declared void by making an order under Section 98 on the ground contained in Section 100(1)(b) of the R.P. Act without prior compliance of Section 99. Absence of notice under Section 99 of the R.P. Act vitiates the final order made under Section 98 by the High Court declaring the election to be void.
Decision
The appeal was allowed. The judgment under appeal was set aside. The election petition was remanded to the High Court for deciding afresh after compliance with Section 99 of the RPA and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Shubham Shandilya, IVth Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune