Election Petition No. 6 of 2009. Case: Mahesh Prasad Singh, Son of Late Chandrika Singh, Resident of village Nuruddinpur, P.O.-P.S. Khusrupur, district Patna Vs Satrughan Sinha, Son of Late Bhuvneshwari Prasad Sinha, Resident of House No. 102 D. Block Kadamkuan, P.O. Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-800003. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Election Petition No. 6 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and For Respondents: M/s. S.N.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv., Manik Vedsen, Amarendra Kr. Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates |
| Judges | V.N. Sinha, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rules 11, 14, 16; Constitution of India - Articles 102, 173, 173(b), 191, 324, 84; Representation of The People Act, 1951 - Sections 100, 100(1), 100(1)(c), 101, 123, 16, 30, 31, 33, 33(1), 34, 36, 36(1), 36(2), 36(2)(a), 36(2)(b), 36(2)(d), 36(4), 38, 80, 81, 83, 83(1)(a), 86, 9 |
| Judgement Date | September 05, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
V.N. Sinha, J.
-
By filing this election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the election of sole respondent from 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency held during General Election 2009 vide declaration dated 30.6.2009 on the ground that nomination paper of the election petitioner for the said election was erroneously rejected and thereby election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared as void under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 100 of the Act. Election petitioner filed his nomination paper on 18.4.2009 for contesting election from 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate of Lok Dal party. Having filed the nomination paper petitioner was granted receipt, Annexure-2 asking him to appear for scrutiny of nomination paper on 20.4.2009 at 11 A.M., check list of documents, Annexure-1 indicated that required documents have been filed by the petitioner along with nomination paper. Having filed the nomination paper petitioner was telephonically informed to come to the confidential section of the office of the Returning officer on 19.4.2009 at 1.40 P.M. to receive an urgent letter. In the light of the instruction petitioner came to the confidential section at 2 P.M. but was kept waiting for an hour and thereafter told that his presence is no more required, whereafter petitioner returned back. In compliance of the instruction given in the receipt to appear for scrutiny of his nomination paper on 20.4.2009 at 11 A.M. petitioner appeared for scrutiny of his nomination paper, he was called in the chamber of the Returning officer and after scrutiny of his nomination paper no objection was raised by the Returning officer as he was satisfied with the contents of the nomination paper and asked the petitioner to leave. The list of validly nominated candidate was published on the notice board on 21.4.2009 at 4.30 P.M. whereafter petitioner came to know that his name is not included in the list of the validly nominated candidate, petitioner submitted application before the Magistrate on duty, who neither received application nor allowed the petitioner to appear before the Returning officer and thus petitioner was deprived of the reason which persuaded the Returning officer to reject his nomination paper. On 22.4.2009 petitioner again visited the office of the Returning officer but there was none to receive his application with requisition for grant of certified copy of the order by which his nomination paper was rejected. The petitioner thereafter communicated the illegal rejection of his nomination paper to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi under fax message dated 22.4.2009 which was transmitted at 14.18 hours annexing the copy of representation dated 21.4.2009. Both the applications are contained in Annexures-3, 3/1 to the election petition. In paragraph-13 of the election petition petitioner has stated that when the free copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper was not given to the petitioner he was compelled to file requisition No. 429 dated 25.4.2009, Annexure-4 for obtaining certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper. In paragraph-14 of the election petition petitioner has submitted that he was never furnished the certified copy pursuant to requisition dated 25.4.2009. In paragraph-15 of the election petition petitioner has stated that on 25.6.2009 he came to the office of the Returning officer/ election office and was informed that he is required to deposit Rs. 800/- for the non-judicial stamp excluding 170 folios for obtaining certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination which could not be deposited/submitted for want of availability of personnel in the election office. In paragraph-16 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that as neither the free copy nor certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper was given, he had no option but to file the election petition without annexing the order rejecting his nomination paper. In paragraph-17 of the election petition it is stated that petitioner was not being given certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper as the authorities wanted to restrain him from filing the instant election petition within the period of limitation i.e. 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of the impugned election i.e. 30.6.2009. In paragraph-18 of the election petition it has been asserted that refund of the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- has also not been allowed to the petitioner. In paragraphs-20, 21, 22 petitioner has asserted that there were 33 candidates who desired to contest the impugned election but as the Electronic Voting Machine(E.V.M.) could provide for only 16 candidates Returning officer adopted the tactics to deliberately reject the nomination paper of remaining candidates including the petitioner so as to enable him to conduct the impugned election with only one E.V.M. Such tactics was adopted by the present Returning officer even in the 31-Patliputra Parliamentary Constituency where also 16 candidates were allowed to contest the election. In paragraph 23 of the election petition election petitioner has stated that he is a senior citizen, a social activist who believes in free and fair election but the conduct of the Returning officer while conducting the scrutiny of nomination paper of petitioner and others was not at par with the expectations under the law. In paragraph-24 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that he is unaware of the ground on which his nomination paper was rejected. In paragraph-25 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that because of omission and commission of the Returning officer he was deprived of his statutory right to contest the Parliamentary election. In paragraph-26 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that he is attached to the people and their ground realities and in the event, his nomination paper would have been accepted there was every chance of his victory as he is not only a trade union leader but also rendering service to the downtrodden. In paragraph-28 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that he was prevented from contesting the election because of the latent administrative pressure as there is alliance between the Janta Dal United(JDU) and the Bhartiya Janta Party(BJP) for ensuring the victory of the sole respondent who is an important leader of the BJP. In paragraph-29 of the election petition petitioner asserted that earlier also he had contested Assembly Election, 2005 in February, 2005 from Bakhtiyarpur Assembly Constituency and he filled up the nomination form for 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency in the same manner in which he had filled up the nomination form for Assembly Election, 2005 held in February, 2005, which was not rejected. In paragraph-30 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that the nomination paper filed by him for contesting 2009 Parliamentary Election from 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency has been improperly rejected. In paragraph 31 of the election petition petitioner has made prayer to set aside the election of the sole respondent held during 2009 Parliamentary Election from 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency with direction to the authorities to hold fresh election for the said constituency.
-
Sole respondent filed written statement stating in paragraph-1 that the election petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. In paragraph-2 of the written statement sole respondent has stated that election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily under Sub-section-(1) of Section 86 of the Act for non-compliance of Section 81 of the Act as the election petition does not contain the date of the impugned election as also the full signature of the election petitioner on every page of the election petition, except on the last page beneath the prayer portion. In paragraph-3 of the written statement sole respondent has stated that contents of paragraphs-2, 3, 4, 6, 9 to 11, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21 appears to be in the nature of corrupt practice but in fact the allegations contained in the said paragraphs are not corrupt practice as defined under Section 123 of the Act. In paragraphs-4, 32 of the written statement sole respondent has stated that the allegations contained in paragraph-28 of the election petition is allegation of corrupt practice as per Sub-section-(7) of Section 123 of the Act but election petitioner has miserably failed to give full particulars and statement of the corrupt practice, as is required under Sub-section-(1)(b) of Section 83 of the Act. It is further stated in the said paragraph that election petitioner has not stated either in paragraph-28 or in any other paragraphs of the election petition the manner in which sole respondent solicited help from the ruling dispensation as also the officials conducting the election for success of his election indicating the date, place and time of soliciting such help from the ruling dispensation or the officials conducting the election. It has also not been stated in the election petition the name of the functionaries of the ruling dispensation including the officials who have rendered help to the sole respondent for success of his election. For failure to furnish the aforesaid particulars in the election petition it has further been stated in the said paragraph that the election petition is fit to be dismissed for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 83 of the Act read with order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. In paragraph-5 of the written statement sole respondent has stated that the verification and affidavit in support of the election petition is defective, as the same is not in accordance with order 6 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. In paragraph-7 of the written statement sole respondent has denied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial