{"id":53827,"date":"1984-01-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-01-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984"},"modified":"2019-02-04T20:50:03","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T15:20:03","slug":"mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984","title":{"rendered":"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 305, \t\t 1984 SCR (2) 278<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/01\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR  305\t\t  1984 SCR  (2) 278\n 1984 SCC  (2)\t 1\t  1984 SCALE  (1)1\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1990 SC 924\t (28)\n\n\nACT:\n     Representation of\tthe People Act, 1951, Section 81(3)-\nConstruction of\t the provisions\t of the\t section-copy of the\nelection  petition  containing\tseveral\t mistakes  of  vital\ncharacter, not\tfound in  the original-Election\t petition is\nnot maintainable and must be dismissed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In\t the  general  elections  held\tin  June  1980,\t the\nappellant fought  as a\tCongress(1) candidate  from Harlakhi\nAssembly constituency in Bihar and was declared elected. The\nrespondent who\twas defeated  filed an\telection petition in\nthe Patna  High Court  listing a  large\t number\t of  persons\nthrough when  corrupt practices\t were alleged  to have\tbeen\npractised by  the appellant. Since the copy of the petition,\nthough attested\t by the\t election petitioner  under his\t own\nsignature to  be a  true copy,\tcontained  several  mistakes\nwhich  were   of  a  very  vital  character,  the  appellant\ncontested  the\t petition  alleging   that   the   mandatory\nprovisions of  section 83(3) of the Representation of People\nAct not\t having been  complied with  at\t all,  the  petition\nshould be  dismissed in limine without going into the merits\nof the\tcase. Though  the High\tCourt found as a fact that a\nlarge number  of mistakes  were there  in the  copy  of\t the\nelection petition  supplied to\tthe appellant.\tYet, as they\nwere of\t a superficial and insignificant nature bordering on\nclerical or  typing mistakes,  on the  whole,  there  was  a\nsubstantial compliance of the provisions of Section 81(3) of\nthe Act. Hence the appeal against the interlocutory order.\n     Allowing  the   appeal  and   dismissing  the  election\npetition the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1:1\tA perusal  of Sections\t81(3) and  86 of the\nRepresentation of  the People  Act reveals  that the statute\nintended  that\t before\t an   election\t petition   can\t  be\nentertained, the  copy sent to the elected candidate must be\na  true\t copy,\tfailing\t which\tthere  would  be  a  serious\ndisobedience of the mandate contained in s.81(3) which would\nbe fatal  to the  maintainability of the said petition. [281\nF]\n     1:2 It  is now  well  settled  by\ta  large  catena  of\nauthorities of\tthis Court  that the  electoral\t process  by\nwhich the  verdict  of\tthe  people  has  been\tgiven  is  a\nsacrosanct one\tand cannot  be lightly\tset at naught unless\nthe grounds  mentioned in  the\tAct  for  setting  aside  an\nelection are  held to  be proved. In these circumstances, it\nis manifest that the provisions of s.81(3) of the act should\nbe construed  to the letter and spirit of the law because if\nthe election  petitioner does  not give\t full  and  complete\nnotice\tof   the  allegations\tmade  against  the  returned\ncandidate, he  runs the risk of his petition being dismissed\nin limine. [281 G-H]\n279\n     2 On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the law on\nthe subject, the following principles are well established;\n     (1)  that where  the  copy\t of  the  election  petition\n\t  served on  the returned  candidate  contains\tonly\n\t  clerical or typographical mistakes which are of no\n\t  consequence,\tthe  petition  cannot  be  dismissed\n\t  straightway under s.86 of the Act, [283 F]\n     (2)  A true  copy means  a copy  which  is\t wholly\t and\n\t  substantially the  same as  the original and where\n\t  there are  insignificant or  minimal mistakes, the\n\t  court may not take notice thereof, [283 G]\n     (3)  where the  copy contains  important  omissions  or\n\t  discrepancies of  a vital nature, which are likely\n\t  to cause  prejudice to the defence of the returned\n\t  candidate, it cannot be said that there has been a\n\t  substantial  compliance   of\tthe   provisions  of\n\t  s.81(3) of the Act, [284 A]\n     (4)  Prime facie,\tthe statute  uses  the\twords  \"true\n\t  copy\" and  the concept  of substantial  compliance\n\t  cannot be  extended too  far to include serious or\n\t  vital mistakes  which shed the character of a true\n\t  copy so  that the  copy furnished  to the returned\n\t  candidate cannot  be said to be a true copy within\n\t  the meaning of s.81(3) of the Act, and [284 B]\n     (5)  As s.81(3)  is meant\tto protect and safeguard the\n\t  sacrosanct electoral process so as not the disturb\n\t  the verdict  of the  voters, there  is no room for\n\t  giving a  liberal or\tbroad interpretation  to the\n\t  provisions of the said section. [284 C]\n     Murarka Radhey  Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore &\nOrs.<\/a> [1964]  3 SCR 573; Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v.\nRajendra Kumar\tPoddar & Ors.<\/a> [1971] 1 SCR 821; Satya Narain\nv. Dhuja  Ram &\t Ors.,<\/a> [1974]  23 SCR  20; Sharif-ud-din  v.\nAbdul Gani Lone,<\/a> [1980] 1 SCR 1177; M. Karunanidhi etc. etc.\nv. H.V.\t Hande &  Ors. etc.  etc.  [1983]  1  SCR  1177;  M.\nKarunanidhi etc.  etc. v. H.V. Hande & Ors. etc. etc. [1983]\n1 SCALE 344 referred to. [284 D-E, 285 G; 286 A; 285 C]\n     3. In  the instant\t case,\tthe  mistakes  in  the\tcopy\nsupplied  to  the  returned  candidate\trelated\t to  corrupt\npractices, have\t to be\tproved\tto  the\t hilt  just  like  a\ncriminal charge and any mistake which contains an element of\nvagueness would\t immediately vitiate  the election  petition\nand merit  its dismissal  under s.86  of the  Act. Among the\nmany more  mistakes given  in Schedule\tI, the\tfew selected\nitems themselves  are vital  and may seriously prejudice the\ndefence of  the appellant  because it will be very difficult\nfor him\t to find out the persons, named in the copy supplied\nto him who are said to have indulged in corrupt practices at\nhis instance.  The present  case is  a much  worse case than\nMurarka Radhey\tShyam Ram  Kumar's case (supra) where only a\nslight difference  in the  title led this Court to hold that\nthe mistake  was a  vital one  was a valid one. Further, the\nomission of  names cannot be said to be a typing mistake but\na very\tvital and  serious on  which is sufficient to entail\nthe dismissal of the election petition. [284 D-E; 285 G; 286\nA; 285 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION Civil  Appeal No. 5307 of
\n1983<\/span>
\n     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated the  7th January,\t 1983 of  the Patna  High  Court  in
\nElection Petition
\n280<\/span>
\n     S.N.  Kacker,  L.R.  Singh\t and  Gopal  Singh  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     R. K. Garg and D.K Garg for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J. By\tOrder dated November 29, 1983 we had
\nallowed the  appeal. We\t now proceed to give the reasons for
\nthe said Order.\n<\/p>\n
     This   election   appeal\tis   directed\tagainst\t  an
\ninterlocutory Order  dated January  7, 1983  passed  by\t the
\nPatna High Court overruling a preliminary objection taken by
\nthe appellant (elected candidate) that the election petition
\nof the\trespondent (election petitioner) should be dismissed
\nstraightaway  under   the  provisions\tof   s.86   of\t the
\nRepresentation of  the People Act. 1951-as amended uptodate-
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)
\n     The appellant’s  case is  that in\tthe general election
\nheld in June 1980 he fought as a Congress (I) candidate from
\nHarlakhi Assembly  constituency in  Bihar in  which  he\t was
\ndeclared elected,  defeating the  respondent who  filed\t the
\nelection petition  in the  High Court.\tHe further submitted
\nthat the  copy\tof  the\t election  petition  served  on\t him
\ncontained a  large number  of mistakes in respect of persons
\nthrough whom  corrupt practices\t were alleged  to have\tbeen
\npractised by the appellant during the election, He contended
\nthat in\t view of  the very  large number  of mistakes, which
\nwere of\t a very vital character, the mandatory provisions of
\ns.81(3) of  the Act  were not  complied with  at all,  which
\ninfirmity by  itself would  be\tsufficient  to\tdismiss\t the
\nelection petition in limine without going into the merits of
\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n
     The stand taken by the respondent was that the mistakes
\nwere  undoubtedly  there  but  they  were  of  a  minor\t and
\nsignificant nature and did not affect his case on merit.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Judge of  the High  Court found  as a fact
\nthat a\tlarge number  of mistakes  were there in the copy of
\nthe election  petition supplied to the appellant but as they
\nwere of\t a superficial and insignificant nature bordering on
\nclerical or  typing mistakes,  on  the\twhole  there  was  a
\nsubstantial compliance\tof the\tprovisions of s.81(3) of the
\nAct.  The   learned  Judge   has  entered  into\t a  detailed
\ndiscussion of
\n281<\/span>
\nthe various  decisions of this Court and also of High Courts
\nand has\t correctly held\t that the  provisions of s.81(3) are
\nmandatory and  if the  court finds  that they  have not been
\ncomplied with  it has  no alternative  but  to\tdismiss\t the
\nelection petition  straightaway. Unfortunately,\t however, in
\nthe process  of applying  the principles  laid down  by this
\nCourt he  has completely  glossed over\tthe  nature  of\t the
\nmistakes by  describing them  as merely\t clerical or  typing
\nones. On  a perusal of the aforesaid mistakes (listed at pp.
\n64-65 of the Paperbook) they do not appear to be so. Section
\n81(3) of the Act thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “81. Presentation of petitions
\n\t  (3) Every  election petition\tshall be accompanied
\n     by as  many copies\t thereof as  there  are\t respondents
\n     mentioned in the petition, and every such copy shall be
\n     attested by  the petitioner  under his own signature to
\n     be a true copy of the petition.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The consequence  of non-compliance\t of this section has
\nbeen mentioned in s.86(3) which may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “86. Trial of election petitions
\n\t  (1) The  High\t Court\tshall  dismiss\tan  election
\n     petition which  does not  comply with the provisions of
\n     section 81 or section 82 or section 117.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A\tperusal\t of  the  above\t reveals  that\tthe  statute
\nintended  that\t before\t an   election\t petition   can\t  be
\nentertained, the  copy sent to the elected candidate must be
\na  true\t copy,\tfailing\t which\tthere  would  be  a  serious
\ndisobedience of the mandate contained in s.81(3) which would
\nbe fatal to the maintainability of the said petition.\n<\/p>\n
     It is now well settled by a large catena of authorities
\nof this\t Court that  the  electoral  process  by  which\t the
\nverdict of the people has been given is a sacrosanct one and
\ncannot be lightly set at naught unless the grounds mentioned
\nin the\tAct for\t setting aside\tan election  are held  to be
\nproved. In  these circumstances,  it is\t manifest  that\t the
\nprovisions of  s.81(3) of the Act should be construed to the
\nletter and  spirit  of\tthe  law  because  if  the  election
\npetitioner does\t not give  full and  complete notice  of the
\nallegations made against the returned candidate, he runs the
\nrisk of his petition being dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
282<\/span><\/p>\n
     In the  instant case,  it is  the admitted\t case of the
\nparties that  the mistakes  in\tthe  copy  supplied  to\t the
\nappellant related  to corrupt  practices indulged  in by him
\nthrough various\t persons who  have been named at pages 64-65
\nof the\tPaperbook. In  Muraka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop
\nSingh Rathore  &  Ors.<\/a>(1)  this\t Court\tmade  the  following
\nobservations:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Having regard to the provisions of Part VI of the
\n     Act we  are of  the view  that the word “copy” does not
\n     mean an  absolutely exact copy. It means a copy so true
\n     that nobody  can by  any possibility  misunderstand it.
\n     The test  whether the copy is a true one is whether any
\n     variation from the original is calculated to mislead an
\n     ordinary person.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In other,\twords, this  Court merely  meant to indicate
\nthat where  the variation  is so  minimal and  insignificant
\nthat it is incapable of misleading any person as to the true
\npurport\t of  the  allegation,  it  would  be  a\t substantial
\ncompliance of the provisions of s.81(3) of the Act. The High
\nCourt has  largely relied  on the  ratio of  this particular
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
     There can\tbe no  dispute regarding  the principle laid
\ndown by\t this Court  but the  main difficulty arises when we
\napproach the facts of a particular case in order to find out
\nwhether the  copy supplied  to\tthe  returned  candidate  is
\nreally a true copy or not.\n<\/p>\n
     In Jagat  Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra KUmar
\nPoddar &  Ors.<\/a>(2) the  same principle was laid down. In this
\ncase, the  mistake was\tthat in the election petition it was
\nstated that  money was\toffered to  on Jetha Kisku by Munshi
\nHansda but  in the  copy served\t on the\t returned  candidate
\ninstead of  Munshi  Hansda  the\t name  of  Paul\t Hansda\t was
\nmentioned. Apparently, the mistake was a verbal one but this
\ncourt held  that it  was sufficient to prejudice the defence
\nand accordingly came to the conclusion that the petition was
\nliable to be dismissed under s.86 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  presently show  that in\tthe instant case the
\nmistakes were of a greater nature than those with which this
\nCourt was dealing
\n283<\/span>
\nwith in\t the aforesaid\tcase. In Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram &
\nOrs.<\/a>(1) this  Court clearly pointed out that where the first
\npart of s.81(3) was not complied with, the provision being a
\nperemptory one,\t total noncompliance  with  the\t same  would
\nentail dismissal  of the election petition under s.86 of the
\nAct. In\t a later case in Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone<\/a>(2)
\nthis Court observed thus
\n\t  “It is  true that  section 89(3)  of\tthe  Act  is
\n     purely procedural\tin  character  and  that  ordinarily
\n     procedural law  should not\t be given  that\t primacy  by
\n     courts as\twould defeat  the ends\tof justice. But if a
\n     law even  though it  may  be  procedural  in  character
\n     insists that an act must be done in a particular manner
\n     and further  provides that\t certain consequences should
\n     follow if\tthe act\t is not\t done in that manner, courts
\n     have no option but to enforce the law as it is.”
\n     In a  latest decision  of the  Court in  M. Karunanidhi
\netc. etc.  v. H. V. Hande & Ors. etc. etc.,(3) the following
\nobservations were made :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  obvious that\tthe photograph was a part of
\n     the averment  contained  in  paragraph  18(b).  In\t the
\n     absence of\t the photograph\t the averment  contained  in
\n     paragraph 18(b)  would be\tincomplete.  The  photograph
\n     referred  to   in\tparagraph  18(b)  was  therefore  an
\n     integral part of the election petition. It follows that
\n     there was total non-compliance with the requirements of
\n     sub-s.(3) of  s.81 of  the Act  by failure to serve the
\n     appellant with a copy of the election petition.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On a  careful consideration  and scrutiny of the law on
\nthe subject, the following principles are well established ;\n<\/p>\n
     1)\t  that where  the  copy\t of  the  election  petition
\n\t  served on  the returned  candidate  contains\tonly
\n\t  clerical or typographical mistakes which are of no
\n\t  consequence,\tthe  petition  cannot  be  dismissed
\n\t  straightaway under s.86 of the Act,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2)\t  A true  copy means  a copy  which  is\t wholly\t and
\n\t  substantially the  same as  the original and where
\n\t  there are  insignificant or  minimal mistakes, the
\n\t  court may not take notice thereof,
\n284<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)\t  where the  copy contains  important  omissions  or
\n\t  discrepancies of  a vital nature, which are likely
\n\t  to cause  prejudice to the defence of the returned
\n\t  candidate, it cannot be said that there has been a
\n\t  substantial  compliance   of\tthe   provisions  of
\n\t  s.81(3) of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4)\t  Prima facie,\tthe statute  uses  the\twords  “true
\n\t  copy” and  the concept  of substantial  compliance
\n\t  cannot be  extended too  far to include serious or
\n\t  vital mistakes  which shed the character of a true
\n\t  copy so  that the  copy furnished  to the returned
\n\t  candidate cannot  be said to be a true copy within
\n\t  the meaning of s. 81(3) of the Act, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5)\t  As s.81(3)  is meant\tto protect and safeguard the
\n\t  sacrosanct electoral\tprocess so as not to disturb
\n\t  the verdict  of the  voters, there  is no room for
\n\t  giving a  liberal or\tbroad interpretation  to the
\n\t  provisions of the said section.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We might  mention here  that in  the instant  case\t the
\nmistakes in  the copy  supplied to  the\t returned  candidate
\nrelated to corrupt practices which, as has been held by this
\nCourt in  a large  number of cases, have to be proved to the
\nhilt just  like a  criminal charge  and\t any  mistake  which
\ncontains an  element of\t vagueness would immediately vitiate
\nthe election  petition and merit its dismissal under s.86 of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In the view that we take, it is not necessary for us to
\nwade through a detailed discussion of the mistakes because a
\nfew mistakes pointed out by the Judge himself clearly reveal
\nthat they  were of a very vital and material nature so as to
\nmislead the  returned candidate\t and prejudice\thim  in\t his
\ndefence. Schedule  I to\t the election petition contained the
\nlist of\t persons through  whom the  corrupt  practices\twere
\nalleged\t to  have  been\t committed.  An\t analysis  of  these
\nmistakes may  be placed\t in three categories-(1) where there
\nis complete omission of some names which have been mentioned
\nin the election petition but not in the copy supplied to the
\nreturned candidate,  (2) giving absolutely wrong names which
\nare bound  to mislead  the appellant  in his  defence as the
\npersons bearing the wrong names could not be traced out, and
\n(3) some  names given in the petition appear to be males but
\nin the\tcopy given  to\tthe  appellant\tthey  appear  to  be
\nfemales.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Coming to  the first category, a few examples will
\nsuffice to
\n285<\/span>
\n     illustrate our point
\n     Sl. No. in\t\t   Name in the\t\t Name in the
\n     Schedule I\t\t   original petition\t copy
\n     17\t\t\t   Yogendra Jha\t\t Omitted
\n     37\t\t\t   Bulari Devi\t\t Omitted
\n     188\t\t   Bal Bhogia\t\t Omitted
\n     445\t\t   Ramdeo Paswan\t Omitted
\n     486\t\t   Jugeshwari Devi\t Omitted
\n     The omission  of names  cannot be\tsaid to\t be a typing
\nmistake but a very vital and serious one which is sufficient
\nto entail  the dismissal of the election petition. Under the
\nsecond category\t (giving wrong\tnames), the  following names
\nmay be mentioned
\n     Sl. No. in\t   Name in original\t     Name in copy
\n     Schedule I
\n     42\t\t   Nanpuran Mitra\t     Mahpuran Mitra
\n     62\t\t   Bilas Jha\t\t     Biml Jha
\n     105\t   Dukhi Devi\t\t     Sudama Devi
\n     179\t   Bhekai Paswan\t     Mokai Paswan
\n     385\t   Mauki\t\t     Tetri
\n     440\t   Kalasiya\t\t     Kalya
\n     466\t   Kalish Jandra Jha\t     Kali Janwa Jha
\n     479\t   Gayatri Devi\t\t     Sati Devi
\n     498\t   Udit Mishra\t\t     Udit Mitra
\n     579\t   Yashodara Mishra\t     Yashoda Devi
\n     679\t   Jhularia Devi\t     Kaushilya Devi
\n     Third Category
\n     29\t\t   Kiran Jha\t\t     Kiran Devi
\n\t      (May be a male or a female) (Must be a female)
\n     444\t   Dulaira\t\t     Ramdeo Paswan
\n     675\t   Rajsunair Yadav\t     Rajsunari Yadav
\n     There are many more mistakes given in schedule I but we
\nhave selected  only those  which are vital and may seriously
\nprejudice the  defence of  the appellant  because it will be
\nvery difficult for him to find out the persons, named in the
\ncopy supplied  to him,\twho are\t said to  have\tindulged  in
\ncorrupt practices at his instance.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, on  an overall  consideration of  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances
\n286<\/span>
\nof this\t case, we  are unable  to agree\t with the High Court
\nthat  the   mistakes  in   the\tcopy   were  either  verbal,
\ntypographical or  clerical. The present case appears to be a
\nmuch worse  case than  Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar’s case
\n(supra) where only a slight difference in the title led this
\nCourt to hold that the mistake was a vital one.\n<\/p>\n
     We are,  therefore, of  the opinion that the High Court
\ncommitted a  serious error  of law in holding that there had
\nbeen a\tsubstantial compliance\tof the provisions of s.81(3)
\nof the\tAct so\tas to exclude the application of s.86 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons given  above, we\tallow the appeal and
\ndismiss the election petition filed in the High Court but in
\nthe circumstances without any order as to costs. As a result
\nof our judgment, nothing now survives in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n287<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 305, 1984 SCR (2) 278 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. RESPONDENT: BAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/01\/1984 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA REDDY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1984-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-04T15:20:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T15:20:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\"},\"wordCount\":2234,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\",\"name\":\"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T15:20:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-04T15:20:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984","datePublished":"1984-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T15:20:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984"},"wordCount":2234,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984","name":"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T15:20:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mithilesh-kumar-pandey-vs-baidyanath-yadav-and-ors-on-2-january-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Baidyanath Yadav And Ors on 2 January, 1984"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}