1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.                    OF 2018  (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13040-13042 OF 2018)   

               Patel Ahmed Mohammad          ....Appellant          

:Versus:    

Balwant Singh Rajput & Ors.           ....Respondents    

J U D G M E N T  

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.  

1. Leave granted.   

2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order  

dated 20th April, 2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at  

Ahmedabad, in Election Application Nos.2, 3 and 6 of 2017 in  

Election Petition No.1 of 2017. By the said order, the High  

Court dismissed all the three applications preferred by the  

appellant seeking dismissal of Election Petition No.1 of 2017 at  

the threshold.   

2    

3. Election Petition No.1 of 2017 has been filed by  

respondent No.1 challenging the election of the appellant to  

the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) held on 8th August, 2017,  

by the members of the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat, on the  

ground that the appellant had committed corrupt practices of  

„bribery‟ and „undue influence‟ within the meaning of sub-

sections (1) and (2) of Section 123 of the Representation of the  

People Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”) and also on the ground  

that two valid votes were illegally and improperly rejected by  

the Returning Officer and at the same time, two invalid votes  

were accepted by the said officer, which has materially affected  

the results of the election. The election petition came to be  

filed on 18th August, 2017 much before the last date of  

limitation.   

 4. The appellant was served with the summons on 7th  

September, 2017 to appear in the election petition, pursuant  

to the order of the High Court dated 21st August, 2017. The  

appellant filed his written statement on 4th October, 2017 and  

also filed the stated three applications for dismissal of the

3    

election petition at the threshold. The first application was  

numbered as Election Application No.2 of 2017, wherein the  

appellant had prayed for dismissal of the election petition  

primarily on the ground of non-compliance of Rules 282 (ii)  

and (iii) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, as there was  

no order to rectify such non-compliance as contemplated  

under Rule 284 and the time provided therefor in the later  

portion of Rule 283 had elapsed. In other words, the election  

petition was required to be dismissed for non-removal of  office  

objections raised by the office/registry of the High Court, in  

exercise of power under Rule 284 after recalling the order  

dated 21st August, 2017. The second application was  

numbered as Election Application No.3 of 2017, praying for  

dismissal of the election petition on the ground of non-

compliance of the provisions of the Act read with the Gujarat  

High Court Rules, 1993, as well as the provisions of Order XIX  

Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”). The grounds  

urged in the application were ascribable to dismissal of the  

election petition under Section 86(1) read with Sections 81(3),  

83(1)(c) and 83(2) of the Act as well as the provisions of CPC

4    

and the High Court Rules. The third application, being  

Election Application No.6 of 2017, was also for dismissal of the  

election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rules 11(a)  

and (d) of CPC, for non-disclosure of the cause of action in the  

election petition and the petition being barred by law. As  

aforesaid, all the three election applications have been rejected  

by the High Court vide common impugned judgment.     

 5. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said decision of the  

High Court, has filed these appeals by special leave. We shall  

deal with the challenge to the impugned judgment in reference  

to the concerned application in seriatim.   

 6. Reverting to the first application i.e. Election Application  

No.2 of 2017, the High Court, in substance, opined that the  

averments in the said application preferred by the appellant  

were vague and unsubstantiated. It found that the appellant  

was not sure as to whether the office objections had been  

removed or not, when the application was filed by him.   

Further, there was no specific averment in the application as  

to which objection raised by the office/registry of the High

5    

Court was not removed. All that had been stated in the  

application was that the objections which were raised by the  

office were not removed, as no noting was found in the official  

record to indicate that the same were duly removed before the  

expiry of the limitation period. The ground urged by the  

appellant did not commend to the High Court. For, the High  

Court found that the same was based on mere conjectures and  

surmises. The High Court instead found that as per Rule 284,  

the matter was required to be listed before the High Court only  

if the objections were not removed within the time fixed  

therefor or as per the order, if any, passed by the Court under  

Rule 283. On the other hand, the subject petition was placed  

before the Court under Rule 285 which presupposes that it  

was so done only after the office objections were duly cured. It  

noted that if the matter was placed before the Court under  

Rule 285 by the Office, it had to be presumed that the Office  

had done so after due scrutiny of the petition and on being  

satisfied that office objections had been duly removed.  

Further, it was only an administrative function of the High  

Court and  could not be the basis to dismiss the election

6    

petition at the threshold. The High Court also found that the  

application under consideration was filed by the appellant one  

month after the date of service of summons and that the plea  

under consideration was not taken in the written statement  

filed by the appellant on 4th October, 2017. The High Court  

concluded that in the absence of any positive statement in the  

application filed by the appellant, as to which of the office  

objections was not removed by the election petitioner  

(respondent No.1) before the matter was placed before the  

Court for consideration under Rule 285, the objection raised  

by the appellant was replete with conjectures and surmises.  

That could not be made the basis to dismiss the election  

petition on the ground of non-removal of office objections. The  

relevant extract of the impugned judgment dealing with this  

aspect reads thus:   

 “32…….In the opinion of the Court there is basic fallacy in  

the said submission. It appears that the applicant himself  was not sure as to whether the office objections were, in fact,  removed or not, when the Election Application No.2 of 2017  

was filed by him inasmuch as there is no specific allegation  made in the application as to which objections raised by the  

office/registry of the High Court were not removed, and it is  stated that “It appears that the objections which were raised  by the office were not removed”. The application appears to

7    

have been filed on mere conjectures and surmises. That  apart, the office was required to be place the matter before  

the Court for appropriate orders under Rule 284 only if the  objections were not removed within the time fixed or as per  

the order, if any, passed by the Court under Rule 283.     33. The petitioner in the reply to the said application, while  

denying the said allegation, has stated on oath that the  petitioner had removed all the objections before the petition  was actually placed before the Court for consideration.  

Pertinently, the petition could be placed before the  Court for consideration under Rule 285, only after the  

removal of the office objections, otherwise the matter  would be placed for appropriate orders by the office for  non-removal of the objections as per Rule 284. No such  

orders were sought by the office under Rule 284,  meaning thereby it has to be resumed that the office  

after scrutiny of the petition, and after removal of office  objections by the petitioner had placed the matter for  consideration before the Court. As held by the Supreme  

Court in case of Chandrakant Uttam (supra), the scrutiny  of election petition is one of the administrative  functions to be performed by the officers of the High  

Court, and such an act would draw a presumption of  having been performed in terms of Section 114(e) of the  

Evidence Act.     34. It is also pertinent to note that after the matter was  

placed before the court as per the roster, the Court had  issued summons to the respondents on 21.08.2017,  directing the respondents to appear before the Court on  

21.09.2017. Thereafter the learned Advocate Mr.  Champaneri appearing for the Respondent No.1 had stated  

that he had filed a separate application seeking further time  to file written statement. Thereafter the matter was directed  to be placed on 06.10.2017. In the meantime, the  

respondent No.1 had filed the written statement and the  present applications on 4.10.2017. At no point of time after  

the filing of the appearance, the learned Advocate for the  applicant (original respondent No.1) had raised such  contention to the effect that the petition was placed for  

consideration before the Court without removing all office  objections. It is true that on presentation of the petition on  18.08.2017, the office had pointed out the office objections  

i.e. No.19, 22 and 23 listed in the prescribed check-list in  Form B. office objection No.19 is as to whether paging is

8    

done; No.22 is as to whether copies are true, legible and  whether typed copies of any written annexures are filed, and  

No.23a is as to whether copies are true copies signed by the  Advocate. The matter was permitted to be circulated before  

the appropriate Bench on 21.08.2017. Hence, it is just  possible that the petitioner had removed the said office  objections before the matter was actually placed before the  

Court for consideration on 21.08.2017. In absence of any  positive statement in the application filed by the applicant as  to which office objections were not removed by the petitioner  

before the matter was placed before the court for  consideration, such application No.2 of 2017 filed merely on  

conjectures and inferences could not be entertained for  dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-removal of  office objections.”    

     (emphasis supplied)      

7. The view so taken by the High Court has been assailed by  

the appellant on the argument that the High Court could not  

have presumed that office objections noted by the Registry of  

the High Court on 18th August, 2017, were duly removed.  

Further, if the office objections had not been removed, it must  

necessarily follow that the Registry could not have posted the  

matter before the Court under Rule 285 but ought to have  

proceeded under Rule 284 of the High Court Rules. In that  

event, the office objections would remain valid and for which  

reason the order passed on 21st August, 2017, issuing  

summons to the appellant to appear in the proceedings ought

9    

to be recalled and the election petition dismissed for non-

removal of the office objections within the limitation period.  

The respondent No.1, on the other hand, supported the view  

expressed by the High Court in rejecting the application and  

has reiterated the same argument before us.   

8. The question is: whether the view taken by the High  

Court as regards the rejection of Election Application No.2 of  

2017 is just and proper? For that, we may first turn to the  

averments in the application to discern whether the finding  

recorded by the High Court is a possible view. The relevant  

averments can be traced to paragraphs 10, 11 and 14 in  

particular. The same read thus:   

“10. It appears that after the election petition was filed, the  

office/Registry of this Hon‟ble Court has raised several  objections which are more popularly referred to and known  as „office objections‟. That in terms of Rule 282 (ii) read with  

Section 283, the same were bound to be removed by the  petitioner or his advocate on the 3rd day from the date of  

presentation provided and stipulated under Rule 282 (ii). The  3rd day from the date of filing of the petition would fall on the  20th of August.   

 11. It appears that the objections which were raised by the  office were not removed and the election petition was placed  

pursuant to the request made on the 18th of August for  circulation on the 21st of August. Thus, in the respectful and  

humble submission of the Applicant/Respondent No.1, there  is non-compliance of Rules 282 (ii) and 283.”

10    

 “14. In view of the office objections raised by this Hon‟ble  

Court and the procedure prescribed under Rule 282 (ii) & (iii)  read with Rules 283a and 284 having not been adhered to, it  

is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the order  passed by this Hon‟ble Court of the nature contemplated  under Rule 285 (i) dated 21st of August, 2017 of issuance of  

summons was at a premature stage and, therefore, the  Applicant/Respondent No.1 respectfully begs to submit that  the said order be recalled and as the office objections, raised  

by the office in the above captioned petition after it being  filed on 17th of August, 2017 not having been removed and  

no time having been either granted or extended, the petition  ought to be and this hereby prayed to be dismissed for non- compliance of Rules 282 (ii) & (iii) read with Rule 283 for  

non-removal of office objections.”  

9. From these averments in the application under  

consideration, it is not clear as to which of the office objections  

remained to be cured when the matter was placed before the  

Court on 21st September, 2017 under Rule 285 of the High  

Court Rules. As aforesaid, the election petition was filed on  

18th August, 2017, on the same day the office objections were  

noted by the Registry, as is noticed from Page 411 of the paper  

book. It is also noticed at the bottom of that document in the  

column of office objections, the numbers notified are only  

serial Nos.19, 22 and 23. The said office objections are:  

 “19. Whether paging is done?  

  22. Whether copies are true legible and whether typed   

11    

   copies of hand-written Annexure filed?    

23. Whether the copies are true copies signed by the  

Advocate?”        

After mentioning the serial numbers of three office objections,  

a further noting is found “(PC- with OO)”. In the first place,  

this noting is evidently made on 18th August, 2017. What is  

relevant for our purpose is that the matter was processed by  

the office under Rule 285 of the Gujarat High Court Rules,  

1993 and placed before the Court on 21st September, 2017.  

On that date, the Court passed the following order:   

 “Date: 21/08/2017  

 ORAL ORDER  

Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 86(1) of  the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 read with Rule 285  of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, office is directed to  

issue summons as per the provisions contained in the  Rules, to the respondents to appear before the Court on  21.9.2017.”  

   10. In this backdrop, while rejecting the objection taken by  

the appellant, the High Court opined that since the appellant  

had come to the Court with an assertion that the office  

objections remained to be cured before the limitation period,  

he should have expressly stated as to which objection  

12    

remained to be cured and the source of his information.  The  

averments in the application, even if read as a whole and  

liberally, do not even remotely suggest that such a case has  

been made out. The High Court, therefore, relying on the  

exposition of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Uttam  

Chodankar Vs. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and Ors.1  

opined that the scrutiny of election petition is one of the  

administrative functions to be performed by the office of the  

High Court and such an official act would draw a presumption  

of all necessary steps having been duly taken by the office and  

being satisfied in that behalf, the matter was placed by the  

office before the Court for appropriate orders under Rule 285.  

 11. We may usefully refer to the Rules of the High Court  

which may have some bearing on the issue under  

consideration, namely, Rules 282, 283, 284 and 285.  The  

same read thus:   

““282. Petition.-  (i) Every application invoking the jurisdiction of the High  Court under section 80A of the Representation of the People  

                                                           1 (2005) 2 SCC 188

13    

Act, 1951, shall be by petition addressed to the Honorable  the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.  

  (ii) The petition shall comply with the provisions of  

sections 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Act and the grounds on  which the relief are sought shall be clearly stated in the  petition which shall be arranged in suitable paragraphs  

consecutively numbered. The relief sought should be set out  at the end of the petition.   

(iii) The full names and the full addresses of all the parties  

to the petition for service of any process shall be stated in  the petition. In addition to the permanent residence and  

addresses of the respondent the present address of the  respondent at which service of the notice may be effected,  shall be stated in the petition.”  

“283. Examination of petition.-  

The office shall examine the petition with a view to see  whether it is in conformity with the requirements of law and  

rules applicable to the same, and if it is not in conformity  with law and rules, raise objections which should be  removed by the party or the Advocate concerned. The office  

shall complete the examination within two days after filing of  the petition and shall bring the office objections to the notice  of the party or the Advocate on the date fixed for attendance  

under rule 282(ii) and such objections shall be removed,  subject to the orders of the Court, if any, within three days  

thereafter.”  

“284. Petition to be placed for orders if objection not  

removed.-  

Immediately after the expiration of time fixed for the removal  

of objections, the petition shall be placed before the Judge  for appropriate orders.”  

“285. Petition to be placed for orders after removal of office  objections.-  

(i) After the removal of office objections, the petition shall  be placed before the Judge for consideration as to whether  the petition is liable to be dismissed under section 86(1) of  

the Act. If the petition is not dismissed under section 86(1) of  the Act, the Judge shall direct issue of summons upon the  

respondent; and the summons shall be issued to the

14    

respondent to appear before the High Court on the date fixed  and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.””  

12. On a bare perusal of the said Rules, it is evident that the  

election petition is required to be placed for orders before the  

Court by the office only after removal of office objections as per  

Rule 285. If the office objections are pending and not cured  

within the prescribed period, the office is obliged to list the  

matter before the Court for appropriate orders under Rule  

284. For that reason, the High Court opined that in the  

absence of any positive statement in the application filed by  

the election petitioner and as the record would show that the  

matter was placed by the office before the Court under Rule  

285, it must follow that the grievance made in the application  

under consideration was based on mere conjectures and  

surmises and cannot be the basis to dismiss the election  

petition at the threshold, as prayed.  We respectfully agree  

with the said view taken by the High Court and as a result, the  

order rejecting the application under consideration, being  

Election Application No.2 of 2017, deserves to be upheld.  

15    

13. Reverting to the second application filed by the appellant,  

being Election Application No.3 of 2017, the thrust of the  

grievance was that the copy of the election petition served on  

the appellant was not a true copy. It was not a copy attested  

by the election petitioner under his own signature, much less  

to be a “true copy” of the petition.  Further, there were blanks  

in the verification clause of the petition and the affidavit in  

Form No.25 was not in conformity with the requirement of law.  

Additionally, it was also urged that the election petitioner had  

not filed as many copies of the election petition as there are  

respondents mentioned in the election petition. The last point  

raised by the counsel for the appellant came to be rejected by  

the High Court on the finding that the same was not taken up  

in the application filed by the appellant. In other words, it was  

canvassed across the Bar for the first time. That being the  

position, the High Court justly disallowed the said contention.  

14. However, with regard to the other aspects raised in the  

application, the High Court noted that the appellant did not  

file the original copy of the election petition served on him, but

16    

produced only a photocopy of the allegedly served copy of the  

election petition along with the application filed for that  

purpose, bearing Election Application No.3 of 2018. The High  

Court noted that the only grievance of the appellant was that  

the copy of the election petition served on him did not contain  

the words: “True Copy”. That contention was rejected by  

placing reliance on the exposition of the Constitution Bench of  

this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs.  

Roop Singh Rathore2, Ch. Subbarao Vs. Member, Election  

Tribunal3 and in T.M. Jacob Vs. C. Poulose and Ors.4,  

wherein it has been held that the real test of whether the copy  

served is a “true one” is to find out whether any variation from  

the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person and if  

there is substantial compliance with the requirements of  

Section 81(3) of the Act, the election petition cannot be  

dismissed at the threshold.   

 15. We must agree with the High Court that to test the  

arguments of the appellant as to whether the copy served on  

                                                           2  (1964) 3 SCR 573   3  (1964) 6 SCR 213   4  (1999) 4 SCC 274

17    

him was a true copy of the original election petition or  

otherwise, it was imperative for him to produce the copy of the  

petition actually served on him and not the photocopy thereof.  

The grievance of the appellant that some blanks had been kept  

in the verification clause or there were material discrepancies,  

could be examined only if the copy of the petition actually  

served on the appellant was produced before the Court. The  

High Court could have non-suited the appellant on this sole  

ground instead of examining the matter any further.   

 16. However, the grievance made before us by the appellant  

is that the factual position recorded by the High Court in  

paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment that the appellant  

had not produced the copy actually served on him in the Court  

is incorrect. In that, the appellant had submitted the  

photocopy of the actually served copy along with Election  

Application No.3 of 2018 and had also undertaken to produce  

the original of the actually served copy at the time of hearing  

and that the same was so produced at the time of hearing and  

handed over to the High Court. This specific plea has been

18    

taken in ground (u) of the special leave petition. In other  

words, the High Court committed manifest error in that  

regard. If that is so, it would be appropriate to relegate the  

parties before the High Court for consideration of grievance  

that the copy actually served on the appellant is not the true  

copy within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act. We are  

inclined to say so also because the plea taken by the appellant  

before us is that the appellant had pointed out 20  

discrepancies in the copy of the election petition served on him  

and a chart whereof has been appended at Pages 855-867 of  

Volume IV of the Special Leave Petition, which according to the  

appellant, were material discrepancies warranting a finding  

that the copy of the petition served on him was not a “True  

Copy” within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act.  We find  

that the High Court has not dealt with this contention in the  

impugned judgment at all.  Even for this reason, the decision  

of the High Court on the application under consideration,  

being Election Application No.3 of 2017, will have to be set  

aside and the parties will have to be relegated before the High  

Court for its consideration afresh on its own merits in

19    

accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we have  

consciously avoided to advert to the rival pleadings and  

submissions on the merits of this issue so that no prejudice is  

caused to either party and the remanded Election Application  

No.3 of 2017 can be decided de novo in accordance with law.  

All contentions available to the respective parties in that  

regard are kept open.   

 17. We may hasten to add that the question to be decided in  

Election Application No.3 of 2017 for dismissal of the election  

petition, will be limited to non-compliance of Section 81(3) and  

the consequences flowing therefrom including under Section  

86(1) of the Act. For, the dismissal of the election petition  

under the latter provision is envisaged only on that count and  

not in reference to some non-compliance of requirement under  

Section 83 of the Act. This is the settled legal position.   

18. As we are inclined to relegate the parties before the High  

Court for consideration of Election Application No.3 of 2017  

afresh in accordance with law, and in the event the appellant  

is in a position to persuade the High Court to allow the said

20    

application, the election petition will have to be dismissed at  

the threshold under Section 86(1) read with Section 81(3) of  

the Act. However, if that application fails, the appellant can be  

permitted to reopen or revive the challenge to the issues raised  

in Election Application No.6 of 2017 for dismissal of the  

election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the CPC,  

on the ground that the election petition does not disclose a  

cause of action or that it is barred by law. In that eventuality,  

the appellant may challenge the judgment rendered in the  

remanded Election Application No.3 of 2017 and also have the  

liberty to file fresh special leave petition against the impugned  

judgment and order passed by the High Court in Election  

Application No.6 of 2017. Further, both such special leave  

petitions can be heard together. All questions in that regard  

are kept open, to be decided appropriately if and when  

occasion arises. For the time being, we do not wish to burden  

this judgment with the said issues and leave it open.  

  19. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in the following terms:  

21    

(I) The judgment and order dated 20th April, 2018  

passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Election  

Application No.2 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of  

2017, is upheld and as a result thereof, the appeal  

against that decision is dismissed.   

(II) The judgment and order dated 20th April, 2018  

passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Election  

Application No.3 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of  

2017 is set aside and the parties are relegated  

before the High Court for de novo consideration of  

the said application which is restored to the file of  

the High Court to its original number in terms of  

this order. The High Court is requested to decide  

the remanded application expeditiously, preferably  

within one month. Hence, the appeal against the  

decision on the Election Application No.3 of 2017 is  

partly allowed.   

(III) The appeal against the judgment and order dated  

20th April, 2018 passed by the High Court of  

Gujarat in Election Application No.6 of 2017 in

22    

Election Petition No.1 of 2017 is disposed of with  

liberty to the appellant to challenge the selfsame  

decision afresh in the event his remanded Election  

Application No.3 of 2017 in Election Petition No.1 of  

2017 is rejected. That special leave petition be  

heard analogously with the special leave petition  

against the order to be passed on Election  

Application No.3 of 2017, should the need arise.   

 20. The appeals and the accompanying application(s) are  

disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.    

 .………………………….CJI.  

     (Dipak Misra)   

…………………………..….J.                (A.M. Khanwilkar)  

…………………………..….J.            (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)  

New Delhi;  

September 26, 2018.