MANGANI LAL v. BISHNU DEO BHANDARI

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. T. M. Chandrashekhar Shivaramagowda and Others Vs. (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