Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Sapandeep Mahto @ Sapan S/o Sajjanlal – Appellant
Versus
Rajkishan Mahto S/o Ratanlal Mahto – Respondent
CR No. 57 of 2022
Decided on : 29-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri Vinod Tekam, PL.
Non-disclosure of offences in the nomination paper as required by election rules can amount to undue influence and lead to the election being declared null and void.
Headnote:
Non-disclosure - Election Challenge - Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994 - Rule 25-A - Section 35 of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961 - Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar {(2015) 3 SCC 467}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was elected as Ward Councillor of Manendragarh Municipality but the election was challenged by respondent No.1 due to non-disclosure of offences in the nomination paper, as required under Rule 25-A of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had admitted to not disclosing criminal cases in the nomination form, as required by Rule 25-A, and cited the consequences of non-disclosure as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar. The court concluded that the election is to be declared null and void based on the non-disclosure, and dismissed the Revision in limine.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-disclosure of offences in the nomination paper, the interpretation of Rule 25-A of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994, and the consequences of non-disclosure as per the legal framework.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994, and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar to establish that non-disclosure of offences in the nomination paper amounts to undue influence and can lead to the election being declared null and void.
Final Decision: The Revision was found to be without merit and was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Revision has been preferred challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koria in Misc. Civil Case No.5/2020 (Rajkishan Vs. Sapandeep Mahto @ Sapan & Others) whereby petition of respondent No.1 challenging the election of the petitioner as returned candidate as Ward Councillor of Manendragarh Municipality on the ground of non-disclosure of offences in his nomination paper, so he played the corrupt practice has been allowed and the result declaring the petitioner herein as Councillor is held to be void.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has succeeded in the election after defeating the respondent No.1 for Ward No.3, Municipal Council, Manendragarh, which was conducted on 21.12.2019 and result was declared on 24.12.2019. Thereafter the respondent No.1 challenged the election of the present petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to disclose criminal antecedents, as required under Form-3A, according to Rule 25-A of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994, (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1994’) as amended on 8.11.2019, vide Notification No.F-1-5/2014/18. He would further submit that without any evidence being produced by the respondent No.1, the Court below has wrongly passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Court below has wrongly held that the applicant is not eligible to participate in the election itself. There is no such mandatory provisions requiring disclosure of acquittal cases. He would further submit that Rule 28 of the Rules, 1994 does not refer to consequences of Rule 25-A, so nondisclosure of offences as required under Rule 25-A is not substantial in view of disqualification prescribed under Section 35 of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961 and only for offences enumerated under Section 35-(h), (hh) and (hhh), no other offence has been mentioned and the respondent No.1 has no such case that the petitioner has been found in such category, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.
5. Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 was amended and Rule 25-A was inserted, according to which, it is mandated that under the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25, every candidate who is submitting his nomination for election of Councillor or Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat before the Returning Officer shall necessarily enclose a self declaration form provided in Form-3A and shall necessarily enclose an affidavit sworn in before the Magistrate 1st Class or Notary. In the said form, not only the conviction, but also the result of acquittal of every case is necessarily to be disclosed. The petitioner has also filed deposition sheet of himself, which reveals that in crossexamination, the petitioner has categorically admitted that he has not furnished information in the said form. He also admitted that from 1998 to 2016, 7 criminal cases have been registered at the Police Stations.
6. Non-disclosure of offence while submitting nomination papers has serious consequences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and Others {(2015) 3 SCC 467} has observed that such non-disclosure amounts to undue influence. The relevant paragraphs are 82, 83 & 84 which read thus:-
“82. Having stated about the need for vibrant and healthy democracy, we think it appropriate to refer to the distinction between disqualification to contest an election and the concept or conception of corrupt practice inhered in the words "undue influence". Section 8 of the 1951 Act stipulates that conviction under certain offences would disqualify a person for being a Member either of House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. We repeat at the cost of repetition unless a person is disqualified under law
