Kiran Raj

In a recent judgement, the Orissa High Court Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra adjudicated on interlocutory applications filed in an election petition. The case pertained to the validity of an election conducted for the 35-Jaleswar Assembly Constituency. The judgment addressed allegations of non-compliance with statutory election procedures and corrupt practices while delivering a mixed verdict—rejecting a plea for dismissal of the petition but striking out specific pleadings.

The election petition sought to declare the election of Aswini Kumar Patra as void and demanded a re-election. The petition challenged the election on two primary grounds: (i) the appointment of Manas Jena as the election and counting agent, who was allegedly disqualified under election laws, and (ii) undue influence exerted by the respondent through his agent, affecting the election results.

Also Read: ‘Mockery of the Patent Process’: Calcutta High Court Slams Unjustified 18-Year Delay in Patent Disposal, Orders Fresh Review

Two interlocutory applications were filed by the respondent. I.A. No. 132 of 2024 sought dismissal of the election petition on grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act), read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and Order-VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It was argued that the petition lacked an affidavit in Form-25 and failed to disclose material facts related to the alleged corrupt practices. Additionally, the respondent contended that the security deposit was defective, rendering the petition liable for rejection.

I.A. No. 133 of 2024 sought to strike out specific pleadings in Paragraphs 9(D) and 9(F) of the election petitions, claiming that they were vague, scandalous, and lacked material particulars necessary to sustain allegations of corrupt practice under election law.

The election petitioner opposed these applications, asserting that the case was based on Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and did not involve allegations of corrupt practices that would require an affidavit in Form-25. It was further argued that the procedural defects raised were not substantive enough to dismiss the petition.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra first examined whether the appointment of Manas Jena as the election agent and counting agent violated statutory provisions. The court noted that Clause-6.1.2 of the Election Commission of India’s Handbook for Candidates-2023 disqualifies certain public officials, including Chairpersons of Panchayat Samitis, from acting as election agents. However, the court observed that the issue of Jena’s disqualification required further scrutiny during trial and could not be a ground for outright dismissal of the petition.

Regarding the allegations under Paragraphs 9(D) and 9(F), the court held that these amounted to allegations of corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(2) of the Act. It was observed that:

“If the allegations made in the paragraphs in question are considered as a whole they would certainly be treated as undue influence within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 123 of the Act.”

However, the court found that these pleadings failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 83(1), as they lacked material facts and an affidavit in Form-25. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including Harishankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi and Senthibalaji v. A.P. Geetha, the court stated that failure to plead material facts in cases alleging corrupt practices is a fatal defect.

The court also addressed the issue of the security deposit and noted that while the petitioner’s challan did not bear the signature of the Deputy Registrar as per the High Court Rules, the deposit itself was made and recorded. It held that this was a procedural lapse attributable to court officials and not a defect that could render the petition invalid.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Reclamation Fee Mandatory for Entire Landholding if it Exceeds 25 Cents

On the issue of verification, the respondent argued that the affidavit should have followed the verification, whereas the election petition contained the affidavit before the verification. The court stated that as long as both elements were present, their order was immaterial.

The Orissa High Court issued the following directives:

• I.A. No. 132 of 2024 was rejected, allowing the election petition to proceed as it raised valid grounds for adjudication.

• I.A. No. 133 of 2024 was allowed in part, striking out pleadings under Paragraphs 9(D) and 9(F) for failure to meet statutory requirements.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner (Respondent in Election Petition):  Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, Senior Advocate with M/s T K. Biswa, R. P. Panda, P. Bharadwaj, B. S. Panigrahi, Advocates

For the Opposite Party (Election Petitioner): Mr. Manas Mohapatra, Senior Advocate with M/s A.P. Bose, K. Mohapatra, S. Swain, K. Routray, D. Sahoo, D K Sethy, S. Satpathy, Advocates.

Case Title: Brajamohan Pradhan v. Aswini Kumar Patra

Case Number: I.A No.132 of 2024 and I.A. No.133 of 2024 in ELEPT No. 5 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra

[Read/Download order]