Improper Maintenance Of Accounts By Election Candidate Not ‘Corrupt Practice’ U/S 123(6) Of Representation Of People Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court rejected an Election Petition seeking to set aside the election of a candidate held in Rajinder Nagar, Assembly Constituency.
The Delhi High Court held that an improper maintenance of accounts by an election candidate is not a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).
The Court held thus an Election Petition seeking to set aside the election of a candidate held in AC-39, Rajinder Nagar, Assembly Constituency, thereby, declaring the said election as null and void.
A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “… it is held that the present petition does not disclose any cause of action. The only allegations that have been made in the election petition, are pertaining to improper maintenance of accounts by the respondent, which as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, does not fall within the scope of „corrupt practice‟ as defined in Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act.”
Ramesh Kumar Khatri appeared as Petitioner-in-person while Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan represented the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner prayed for debarring the Respondent from contesting Assembly Elections for six years, as per Section 8(A) of the RP Act. It was alleged in his Petition that the Respondent showed fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register and did not lodge true accounts of expenditure incurred on refreshment, hoarding, banners, pamphlets, brooms, etc. in his election expenditure register. The Respondent filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the said Petition, on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and being barred by law.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “It is settled law that an election petition, which does not set out material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the 1951 Act and, therefore, does not disclose a cause of action, can be dismissed at the threshold.”
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the material facts consist of all those facts which are necessary to plead, for a Court to decide the Petition in favour of the Petitioner, even if the Respondent has failed to appear to defend himself.
“Thus, where no cause of action is established and no material facts and particulars have been given, then in such a case, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold”, it added.
The Court said that the fundamental rule underlying Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that a Court is required to examine the allegations made in the Petition alone and it is the Petition which must ex facie disclose cause of action, on the basis of which the case would proceed further for trial.
“However, where the allegations made in the petition are taken to be true and correct on the face of it, and the same does not disclose any cause of action or triable issue, then said petition would be liable to be dismissed, by invoking the authority under Order VII Rule 11 CPC”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Election Petition and allowed the Respondent’s Application.
Cause Title- Ramesh Kumar Khatri v. Durgesh Pathak (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:664)
Appearance:
Respondent: Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan, Advocates Karan Sharma, Asmita Singh, Mohit Siwach, Rishikesh Kumar, and Sheenu Priya.
