ZP Election Rules 1994 | Online Election Plea Filing With Petitioner's VC Presence During COVID Satisfies Rule 4 (3) : Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an election petition is e-filed by the petitioner himself and the petitioner is present virtually before the court along with his advocate at the time of its presentation during the COVID-19 period, the same would amount to 'sufficient compliance' with Rule 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election Disputes...
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an election petition is e-filed by the petitioner himself and the petitioner is present virtually before the court along with his advocate at the time of its presentation during the COVID-19 period, the same would amount to 'sufficient compliance' with Rule 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994, which requires that an election petition be presented in person.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam opined that a petitioner couldn't be said to be not presented personally if he himself, from his own e-mail ID, filed the plea and while entertaining the said e-petition, District Judge explicitly mentioned the presence of the petitioner virtually.
The case in brief
For context, the Court was dealing with a writ plea concerning the Zila Panchayat Elections to a Ward in Muzaffarnagar. Elections were held on April 19, 2021, and counting completed on May 3, 2021, in which, petitioner (Veerpal) was declared the winner.
Respondent No. 1 (Prabhat Tomar), who was declared second in the polls, filed an election petition under Section 27 subclause 2 (a) (b) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 read with Rule 4 of 1994 Rules on various grounds.
The returning candidate (Veerpal) thereafter filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the election petition. When the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in May this year, her moved the HC with the present writ plea.
Arguments
Petitioner-Veerpal contended in the HC that Rule 4(3) of the 1994 Rules mandates that an election petition “shall be presented in person by the petitioner” and since the election petition was physically filed through an advocate, not by the petitioner himself, it was liable to be rejected.
It was also argued that the pleadings were vague, lacked material particulars and sought a roving enquiry.
Specifically, it was the stand of the petitioner that no details as to the votes (ballot papers) which were alleged to be casted in favour of the election petitioner, but the credit of which has been given to the present petitioner, had been given in the plea.
In reply to these contentions, the counsel for the original election petitioner (Tomar) submitted that the petition was filed on June 2, 2021, during COVID restrictions, when filing through both physical and electronic modes was permitted.
It was submitted that while a copy was filed physically through counsel, the election petitioner also filed the petition by email from his own email ID along with an application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957.
Crucially, the bench was also apprised that when the matter was taken up virtually by the District Judge on June 2, 2021, the election petitioner was personally present through video conferencing along with his advocate, which was recorded in the order itself.
Furthermore, it was submitted that in a petition filed under the 1961 Act, there is no requirement of pleading material particulars as required under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the only requirement is that the grounds of challenge have to be mentioned in the election petition.
High Court's observations
At the outset, the bench referred to sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 to note that it mandates that every petition under the sub-Rule 1 or sub-Rule 2 shall be presented in person by the petitioner.
Noting that the original election petition was filed virtually in the extraordinary situation prevailing due to COVID pandemic, the Court, agreeing with the contention raised by the election petitioner, the High Court observed thus:
"In case, the petition is presented through e-mode and when the petition is taken up virtually, if the petitioner is virtually present at the time of hearing of the petition, that will be sufficient compliance of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 for the reason that objective behind the mandatory provision…is to check that the election petition is not presented by an imposter but a genuine person.”
On the second contention regarding vagueness in the plea, the Court held that while the averments in paragraphs 8–14 regarding counting of votes may lack particulars, the election petition also challenged the recounting of votes conducted "behind the back of the respondent", for which sufficient pleadings were made.
Furthermore, the court observed that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint or election petition cannot be rejected in part.
Thus, concluding that “sufficient compliance” of Rule 4(3) had been made and that the Election Tribunal had committed no error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case title - Veerpal vs. Prabhat Tomar And 13 Others
Case citation: