These two intra-Court appeals challenging the impugned order dated 13.4.2010 passed in WP(C) No.4603/2008 have been filed by the writ petitioner Vikas [the appellant in LPA No.430/2010 and the respondent No.1 in LPA No.334/2010] and Satish Kumar [the appellant in LPA No.334/2010 and the respondent No.1 in LPA No.430/2010] from different spectrums. Regard being had to the composite nature of the order and their insegregable consequential impact on each other, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a singular order.

2. The facts, as unfurled, are that Vikas, the appellant in LPA No.430/2010, a candidate of the Indian National Congress (INC), had contested for the post of Councilor from ward No.78 i.e. Majnu-Ka-Tila of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and was declared as elected. His election was called in question before the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) who, by order dated 4.6.2008, declared the election to be null and void and further held that in terms of Section 19(1)(c) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 („DMC Act), the respondent Satish Kumar, the appellant in LPA No.334/2010, of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) should be declared elected as Councilor of the said ward No.78. As is discernible, the learned ADJ, on the basis of the pleadings brought on record, framed an issue whether the nomination papers of the elected candidate were filed in time along with Forms A and B being the duly authorized substitute candidate of the INC. It was claimed by the writ petitioner Vikas to be a substitute candidate for Sh. Charan Dass, the official candidate of INC for ward No.78 who had filed his nomination papers on 17.3.2007. His nomination papers were accompanied by Forms A and B. The said Form A was signed by Sh. Ashok Gehlot, the General Secretary of the INC and was dated 10.3.2007. Thereunder, Sh. Ram Babu Sharma, President of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee, New Delhi, was authorized to intimate the names of the candidates proposed to be set up by the party for ward No.78. The said Form A contained the specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Babu Sharma. In Form B, which was enclosed with the nomination Form of Sh. Charan Dass, the name of Sh. Charan Dass was shown in Column No. 2. Column No. 5, which is titled „name of the substitute candidate (who will step in the event of the official candidates nomination paper being rejected on scrutiny), was left blank.

3. The issues that emerged for consideration before the election tribunal are whether the filing of nomination papers by the elected candidate was in order or defective; whether the Forms A and B had, in fact, been enclosed with the nomination papers of the said candidate or not; and in case the election of the said candidate is treated to be invalid; whether the election petitioner could be declared to be the elected candidate as the councilor for the ward in question.

4. The learned Additional District Judge analyzed and appreciated the evidence of K.R. Kishore, the Secretary of State Election Commission and perused the documents, namely, Exhibit CW.1/1 the complaint made by one Sohan Lal, Exhibit CW.1/2 the acknowledgement dated 20th April, 2007, Exhibit CW.1/3 and CW.1/4 Forms A and B, Exhibit CW.1/5 the nomination papers of the returned candidate, Vikas, Exhibit CW.1/6, CW.1/7 and CW.1/8 the nomination papers of other candidates and Exhibit CW.1/9 the result of the election. The tribunal further adverted to the evidence of CW.2, Hira Lal Duggal, who was examined as a court witness and R.K. Sharma who was the Returning Officer of the ward in question and also scrutinized the evidence of the election petitioner, Satish Kumar, the testimony of RW.1, Vikas, RW.2, Prahlad Singh Sahney, and came to hold that Forms A and B given by the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee in favour of Charan Dass whose forms are Exhibit CW.1/3 and CW.1/4 did not bear any authorisation in favour of the elected candidate Vikas