Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal - Petitioner
Versus
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar - Respondent.
Election Petition No. 6, 9 OF 2014 with Applications in EP Nos. 57, 65, 66, 72, 82 And 85 OF 2016
Decided On : 24-11-2017
The election of the Returned Candidate (RC) was challenged on the grounds of defects in nomination papers, late presentation of nomination forms, and corrupt practices. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act), Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, and the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 to determine the validity of the nomination papers and the timing of their submission.
Fact of the Case:
The RC filed four sets of nomination papers, but each set suffered from defects. Two nomination papers were not in the prescribed format, incomplete, and lacked Forms A and B. The RC filed two more nomination forms after 3:00 p.m., the deadline for submission. The petitioners alleged that the RC had influenced election officials and engaged in corrupt practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nomination papers were indeed defective and incomplete. The RC failed to remove the discrepancies pointed out by the Returning Officer (RO) during preliminary examination. The RC also failed to submit Forms A and B within the prescribed time. The court further found that the nomination papers were not presented before the RO before 3:00 p.m. on the last date for filing nominations. The court rejected the RC's contention that he had submitted the nomination papers prior to 3:00 p.m. The court also found that the RC had not obtained votes by corrupt practices.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination papers were defective and incomplete? 2. Whether the nomination papers were presented before the RO after 3:00 p.m. on the last date for filing nominations? 3. Whether the RC engaged in corrupt practices?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nomination papers were defective and incomplete because they were not in the prescribed format, lacked Forms A and B, and contained discrepancies that were not removed by the RC. The court also held that the nomination papers were not presented before the RO before 3:00 p.m. on the last date for filing nominations. The court further held that the RC had not obtained votes by corrupt practices. The court relied on the provisions of the Act, the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, and the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court declared the election of the RC void. The court also directed the Registrar Judicial to communicate the decision to the appropriate authorities as required by law.
1. Both the petitions are filed under sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) to challenge the election of respondent - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, who is Returned Candidate (hereinafter referred to as 'RC' for short) from 101-Jalna Legislative Assembly Constituency. It was general election to the State Legislative Assembly for the term commencing from November 2014. The petitioner from Election Petition No. 6/2014 contested this election as a candidate of Congress I party and the petitioner of the other proceeding is the electoral member of this constituency.
2. The programme of the election was as follows :-
| 20th September 2014 to 27th September 2014 (Saturday) | The period prescribed for filing of the nominations |
| 27th September, 2014 | Till 3 p.m. the time to deliver the nomination paper |
| 29th September 2014 (Monday) | The date fixed for scrutiny of nominations |
| 15th October 2014 (Wednesday) | The date of polling |
| 19th October 2014 (Sunday) | The date of counting of votes and declaration of the results. |
The RC secured 45078 votes and the candidate of the Congress I party secured 44782 votes and so, the victory margin is 296 votes.
3. It is the case of petitioners that the RC had filed four sets of nomination papers, but each set suffered from defects of substantial nature and all the four sets of nomination papers were liable to be rejected. The specific case of both the petitioners is as under :-
(i) Two nomination papers filed by the RC on 26.9.2014 (which are given numbers 9 and 10 by Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'RO' for short) were not in prescribed format, they were incomplete and they were not accompanied by Forms A and B, as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of para No. 13 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968.
(ii) With nomination form No. 9, there was no complete copy of prescribed form of From No. 26. Form No. 26 was not as per requirement of law and RC had evolved new form as per his own idea. When in Form No. 26 information in respect of five persons, who include three dependents, other than spouse is required to be given, the RC had given information in respect of only four persons.
(iii) Nomination form No. 10 was not accompanied by original copy of Form No. 26 and zerox copy of such form was produced with nomination papers when law requires affidavit notarized before Notary Public in respect of contents of Form No. 26. Zerox copy of Form No. 26 was filed and so, there was no affidavit to the contents of Form No. 26. Further, this zerox copy was also not complete and it was not in prescribed format and the contents were like Form No. 26 which was filed with nomination paper No. 9.
(iv) The RC filed two nomination forms bearing Nos. 43 and 44 on 27.9.2014, but these forms were presented before the RO after 3.00 p.m. It is also the contention that zerox copy of Form No. 26 was produced along with nomination form No. 44 and so, nomination form No. 44 was not complete.
(v) It is the contention of the petitioners that A, B forms were not handed over to RO prior to 3.00 p.m. of 27.9.2014 and they were handed over after 3.00 p.m. of 27.9.2014 by RC and so, nomination papers which were given Nos. 9, 10, 43 and 44 could not have been accepted and they were liable to be rejected.
4. It is the contention of petitioners that the late presentation of nomination form Nos. 43 and 44 by the RC was witnessed by many persons including candidates and their proposers, who were waiting in the building where the office of RO is situated. It is contended that just before 3 p.m. of 27.9.2014, Assistant Returning Officer (hereinafer referred to as 'ARO' for short) Shri. Rewannath Labade came to the place, passage where the intending candidates and their proposers were
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
