SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Del) 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
BHOLA NATH VIJ - Petitioner
Versus
KANWAR KARAN SINGH - Respondent
IA 812/2010 in EP 13/2009
Decided on : January 4, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.H.S.Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ashok Kashyap and Mr.Kanwar Faizal, Advocates
Mr.V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.I.Choudhary, Advocate

Headnote:

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 80A & 81A r/w Sections 100 & 101--Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Section 151--Striking out of certain additional facts and particulars--No pleading in the election petition that the improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate had materially affected the result of the election and it was to cover this lacuna that such pleas were being raised in the rejoinder--Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT

REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

By way of this application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent prays for striking out of certain additional facts and particulars which are added in paragraphs 6(a) and 6(d) of the rejoinder of the petitioner, and that the additional documents filed in support thereof may not be taken on the record.

2. A brief background, leading to the filing of the above application, is necessary. The petitioner has filed an Election Petition under Sections 80A and 81A read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of the respondent, Shri Kanwar Karan Singh to the Delhi Legislative Assembly, from Single Member Constituency No.AC 18, Model Town, NCT of Delhi, the result of which was declared on 08.12.2008. Paragraphs 6(a) of the petition, upon which the controversy in the present application, revolves read as under: “6. That the nomination papers of Respondent No.1 were liable to be rejected on account of following lapses and not meeting the requirements of law:-

(a)That the proforma of affidavit to be filed in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was circulated by the Election Commission of India, true copy of which is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2 wherein in column 3 [Note: Please give separate details for each item]. A true copy of the affidavit submitted by Respondent No.1 along with his nomination paper is anne xed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2A. The relevant portion of Annexure P-2A is reproduced below:- 3. I give herein below the details of my liabilities/overdue to public Financial Institutions and Govt. dues (page 6) [Please give separate details of each item]

Sl. No. Description Name & Address of Bank/Financial Institution/Departments Amount outstanding as on …..

(a) (i) Loans from Bank NIL NIL

(ii) Loans from Financial Institution Ford Endeavor car from ICICI Bank A/c. LADEL00003779142 Maruti Omni loan from ICICI Bank A/c No. LADEL00008328739 As on 5.11.2008 Balance due Rs.Nil (Capitalized in the book of Kanwar & Company) As on 5.11.2008 balance of Rs.68,592/- is due.

(iii) Government dues (other than income tax and wealth tax) (No Dues Certificate to be enclosed in case holding or having held any public offices. NIL NIL On comparision of both the Annexures i.e. Proforma Affidavit issued by the Election Commission and affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 shows that the following paras are missing from the affidavit of Respondent No.1. 3. … (a) (i) … (ii) … S.No. Government Dues

(iii)

(a) (a)Dues to departments dealing with government accommodation

(b)Dues to departments dealing with supply of water

(c) dues to departments dealing with supply of electricity

(d)dues to departments dealing with telephones

(e)dues to departments dealing with government transport (including aircrafts and helicopters)

(f)other dues, if any

The above format contained dues from (a) to (f) which have been totally deleted from the format by the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 being member of legislative assembly holding public office for the last term was duty bound to submit No Dues Certificate from the appropriate authority. The Respondent No.1 had no right to delete the column for (a) to (f) like dues to Department, dealing government accommodation, water supply, electricity supply, telephones, government transport, etc. Thus this is a material concealment of information as well as non-disclosure of material information, therefore, the affidavit filed by him alongwith nomination paper was improper/incomplete and not in accordance with the orders/rules passed by the Election Commission of India. Such a violation can not be ignored and his nomination was totally incompetent.

The material concealment of facts by the returned candidate has materially affected the election of the Petitioner as the nomination was accepted improperly by non-compliance of provisions of the Act and R


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top