MANGANI LAL MANDALversusBISHNU DEO BHANDARI

                     [2012] 1 S.C.R. 527


                  MANGANI LAL MANDAL                                 A
                               v.
                  BISHNU DEO BHANDARI
              (Civil Appeal No. 10728 of 2011)

                     FEBRUARY 1, 2012
                                                                     B
          [R.M. LODHA AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951:
                                                                     c
    s. 100(1)(d)(iv) - Election petition challenging the election
of returned candidate - On the ground of non-compliance of
provisions of the Constitution or the Act - Held: A mere non-
compliance or breach of the Constitution or the statutory
provisions by itself, does not result in invalidating the election
                                                                     0
of a returned candidate u/s 100(1)(d)(iv) - For the election
petitioner to succeed on such ground, he has not only to plead
and prove the ground but also that the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been
materially affected ~ In the entire election petition thf?re is no   E
pleading at all that suppression of the information by the
returned candidate in the affidavit filed along with the
nomination papers With regard to his first wife and dependent
children from her and non-disclosure of their assets and
liabilities has materially affected the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate - There is no         F
issue framed in this regard nor is there any evidence let in
by the election petitioner - High Courl has a/so not formed
any opinion on this aspect - Judgment of High Courl is gravely
flawed and legally unsustainable and, as such, is set aside -
Election petition dismissed - Costs.                                 G

    The respondent, a voter, filed an election petition
challenging the election of the returned candidate to the
Lok Sabha on the ground that he suppressed the facts
                           527                                       H
    528      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A in the affidavit filed along with his nomination papers, that
  he had two wives and the dependant children from
  marriage with his first wife and also did not disclose the
  assets and liabilities of his first wife and the dependent
  children born out of that wedlock. The High Court
B allowed the election petition and set aide the election of
  the returned candidate holding it as void u/s 100(1)(d)(iv)
  of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Aggrieved,
  the returned candidate filed the appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
       HELD: 1.1 A reading of s.100(1)(d)(iv) with s.83 of the
  Representation of the People Act, 1951 leaves no manner
  of doubt that where a returned candidate is alleged to be
  guilty of non-compliance of the provisions of the
D Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made
  thereunder and his election is sought to be declared void
  on such ground, it is essential for the election petitioner
  to aver by pleading material facts and prove that the result
  of the election insofar as it concerned the returned
E candidate has been materially affected by such breach
  or non-observance. A mere non-compliance or breach
  of the Constitution or the statutory provisions by itself,
  does not result in invalidating the election of a returned
  candidate u/s 100(1)(d)(iv). [para 9) [532-E-G; 533-A-B]
F     Jabar Singh Vs. Genda Lal (1964) 6 SCR 54; L.R.
  Shivaramagowda and Others Vs. T. M. Chandrashekhar
  (dead) by LRs. and Others. 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 241         =
  1999 (1) SCC 666 and Uma Bal/av Rath (Smt.) Vs.
  Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt) and others 1999 (1) SCR 895        =
G 1999 (3) SCC 357 - relied on.

      1.2 The impugned judgment does not reflect any
  consideration on the most vital aspect as to whether the
  non-disclosure of the information concerning the
H appellant's first wife and the dependent children born out
MANGAN! LAL MANDAL v. BISHNU DEO BHANDARI 529


of that wedlock and their assets and liabilities has A
materially affected the result of the election insofar as it
concerned the returned candidate. As a matter of fact,
in the entire election petition there is no pleading at all in
this regard nor is there any issue framed nor any
evidence let in by the election petitioner. The High Court B
has also not formed any opinion on this aspect. The
impugned judgment of the High Court is gravely flawed
and legally unsustainable and, as such, is set aside. As
a matter of law, the election petition deserved dismissal
at threshold yet it went into the whole trial consuming c
Court's precious time and putting the returned candidate
to unnecessary trouble and inconvenience. The election
 petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,0001
 -. [para 10-11] [533-F-H; 534-A-D]

     Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms D
                           =
& Anr. 2002 (3) SCR 696 2002 (5) SCC 294 and People's
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
                           =
Anr. 2003 (2) SCR 1136 2003 (4) SCC 399 - cited.

                      Case Law Reference:                           E
  2002 (3) SCR 696              cited                 para 5
  2003 (2) SCR 1136             cited                 para 5
  (1964) 6 SCR 54               relied on             para 9
                                                                    F
  1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 241 relied on                   para 9
  1999 (1) SCR 895              relied on             para 9

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 10728 of 2011.                                                     G

     From the Judgment & Order dated 25.11.2011 of the High
 Court of Judicature at Patna in Election Petition No. 4 of 2009.

    A. Sharan, Ashutosh .Jha, Somesh Chandra Jha, Amit
 Anand Tiwari for the Appellant.                                    H
     530      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012) 1 S.C.R.


A       S.B.K. Mangalam, Nakul Pathania, Abhay Kumar for the
    Respondent..

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       R.M. LODHA, J. 1. The returned candidate - Mangani Lal
B Mandal - is in appeal under Section 116A of the
  Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, '1951 Act')
  aggrieved by the judgment dated November 25, 2011 of the
  Patna High Court whereby his election to the 15th Lok Sabha
  has been set aside.
c      2. The appellant - the returned candidate - contested the
  general Parliament election to the 15th Lok Sabha from 7,
  Jhanjharpur Parliamentary Constituency held on April 23, 2009.
  Altogether 12 candidates filed their nomination papers,
  including the appellant, as per the schedule fixed for conducting
D the said election. On May 16, 2009, the result of the above
  election was announced and the appellant was declared
  elected.

        3. The respondent - Bishnu Deo Bhandari, a voter
E (hereinafter referred to as the 'election petitioner') - challenged
  the election of the returned candidate by filing the election
  petition before the Patna High Court. The election petitioner
  alleged that the returned candidate suppressed the facts in the
  affidavit that he filed alongwith his nomination papers that he
  had two wives and the dependent children by marriage with his
F first wife. He did not disclose the assets and liabilities of his
  first wife and the dependent children born out of that wedlock.
  The challenge to the election of the returned candidate was
  brought under Section· 100(1 )(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act and it was
  prayed that the e.lection of the returned candidate be declared
G to be void.                    ·

       4. The returned candidate traversed the averments made
  by the election petitioner and also raised diverse objections,
  inter alia, that the election petition did not disclose any cause
H of action nor it contained the concise statement of material
MANGAN! LAL MANDAL v. BISHNU DEO BHANDARI 531
              [R.M. LODHA, J.]  .

facts,                                                               A
      5. The High Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, framed as many as seven issues and, after recording
the evidence, held that the returned candidate fai~d to furnish
information about his first wife and the dependents in the
                                                                     8
affidavit filed along with his nomination papers. The High Court
heavily relied upon the two decisions of this Court in Union of
India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr1• and
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. Vs. Union
of India & Anr. 2 and held that the suppression· of facts by the
returned candidate with regard to the assets and liabilities of      C
his first wife and the dependent children born out of that wedlock
was breach of the Constitution viz. Article 19(1 )(a) and for such
breach and non-compliance, the candidate who has not
complied with and breached the right to information of electors
 and has won the election has to suffer the consequence of such      D ·
 non-compliance and the breach. The High Court, in view of the           I
 above, set aside the election of the returned candidate from
Jhanjharpur Parliamentary Constituency being void under
 Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act.
                                                                     E
      6. We have heard Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel
for the appellant, and Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for
the respondent.

    7. The Appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground
which we indicate immediately hereinafter.                           F

     8. Section 100 of the 1951 Act provides for grounds for
declaring election to be void. As we are concerned with Section
100(1)(d)(iv), the same is reproduced which-reads as under:-
                                                                     G
      "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1) Subject
      to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of
      opinion-

 1.   c2002) 5 sec 294.
 2.   (2003) 4 sec 399.                                              H
    532         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         (a)    x                      x                  x          x

          (b)    x                      x                  x          x

          (c)    x                      x                  x         x

B         (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a
          returned candidate, has been materially affected-

                 (i) x                  x                  x

                 (ii) x                 x                  x
c
                 (iii) x                x                 x

          (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the
          Constitution or of this Act or any rules or orders made
          under this Act,
D
          the High Court shall declare the election of the returned
          candidate to be void.

          (2)   x                       x                 x
E
        9. A reading of the above provision with Section 83 of the
   1951 Act leaves no manner of doubt that where a returned
  candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-compliance of the
  provisions of the Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or
  orders made thereunder and his election is sought to be
F declared void on such ground, it is essential for the election
  petitioner to aver by pleading material facts that the result of
  the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has
  been materially affected by such breach or non-observance. If
  the election petition goes to trial then the election petitioner has
G also to prove the charge of breach or non-compliance as well
  as establish that the result of the election has been materially
  affected. It is only on the basis of such pleading and proof that
  the Court may be in a position to form opinion and record a
  finding that breach or non-compliance of the provisions of the
H Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made
MANGAN! LAL MANDAL v. BISHNU DEO BHANDARI 533
              [RM. LODHA, J.]

thereunder has materially affected the result of the election A
before the election of the returned candidate could be declared
void. A mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or
the statutory provisions noticed above, by itself, does not result
in invalidating the election of a returned candidate under
Section 100(1 )(d)(iv). The sine qua non for declaring election B
 of a returned candidate to be void on the ground under clause
 (iv) of Section 100(1 )(d) is further proof of the fact that such
 breach or non-observance has resulted in materially affecting
 the result of the returned candidate. In other words, the violation
 or breach or non-observation or non-compliance of the                   c
 provisions of the Constitution or the 1951 Act or the rules or
 the orders made thereunder, by itself, does not render the
 election of a returned candidate void Section 100(1 )(d)(iv). For
 the election petitioner to succeed on such ground viz., Section
  100(1)(d)(iv), he has not only to plead and prove the ground but 0
 also that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the
  returned candidate has been materially affected. The view that
  we have taken finds support from the three decisions of this
  Court in (1) Jabar Singh Vs. Genda Lal'; (2) L. R.
  Shivaramagowda and Others Vs. T. M. Chandrashekhar E
  (dead) by LRs. and Others. 4 and (3) Uma Bal/av Rath (Smt.)
  Vs. Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt) and others5•

      10. Although the impugned judgment runs into 30 pages,
but unfortunately it does not reflect any consideration on the
most vital aspect as to whether the non-disclosure of the                F
information concerning the appellant's first wife and the
dependent children born out of that wedlock and their assets
and liabilities has materially affected the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate. As a matter of
fact, in the entire election petition there is no pleading at all that   G
suppression of the information by the returned candidate in the
affidavit filed along with the nomination papers with regard to
 3.   (1964) 6 SCR 54.
 4.   (1999) 1 sec 666 ..
 5.   (1999) 3 sec 357.                                                  H
    534     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A  his first wife and dependent children from her and non-
  disclosure of their assets and liabilities has materially affected
  the result of the election. There is no issue framed in this regard
  nor there is any evidence let in by the election petitioner. The
  High Court has also not formed any opinion on this aspect. We
B are surprised that in the absence of any consideration on the
  above aspect, the High Court has declared the election of the
  returned candidate to the 15th Lok Sabha from the Jhanjharpur
  Parliamentary Constituency to the void. The impugned judgment
  of the High Court is gravely flawed and legally unsustainable.
c As a matter of law; the election petition filed by the election
  petitioner deserved dismissal at threshold yet it went into the
  whole trial consuming Court's precious time and putting the
  returned candidate to unnecessary trouble and inconvenience.

        11. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned
D judgment dated November 25, 2011 is set aside. The election
  petition filed by the respondent is dismissed with costs which
  we quantify at ' 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh).

    R.P.                                           Appeal allowed.