Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Saroj - Appellant
Versus
Delhi State Election Commission - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 3057 of 2017 and C.M. No. 13372 of 2017
Decided On : 08-05-2017
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the Returning Officer/Scrutinising Officer (referred to as the RO/SO) for Ward No.0001E, 0002E, 0003E and 0004E of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC). By the impugned order, the RO/SO has rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner offering her candidature as a candidate for election as a municipal councillor in Ward No.3E of the EDMC.
2. The petitioner states that she is a lady, social worker and a politician. Being desirous of contesting the upcoming municipal elections, the petitioner was set up as a candidate by the Bhartiya Janta Party from Ward No.3E, Trilokpuri (West) of EDMC, which is reserved for women only belonging to the scheduled caste. On 03.04.2017, the petitioner filed her nomination paper with the requisite documents. Her nomination paper was scrutinised by respondent no.2/RO/SO on 05.04.2017. On the same day, by the impugned order, her nomination has been rejected. The impugned order, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows:
"The said nomination paper was scrutinised and placed for inspection to all other candidates of the same ward and election observer also.
Rule 22(2)(a) & (b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012 provides that:
(2) The Scrutinising Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination, and may either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination paper on any of the following grounds:-
(a) That on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination the candidate earlier is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen as a councillor under the Act: or (b) That there has been a failure to comply with any of the
provisions of rules 18, 19 and 20.
Rules 19(3) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012 provide that-
"In a ward where any seat is reserved for woman, a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless her nomination paper contains a declaration made by her that she is a women".
The seat of ward no.003E is reserved for SC (women) candidate by the State Election Commission, Delhi.
During the scrutiny, the following discrepancy was observed:-
1. The said nomination of Smt. Saroj was not contained with a declaration made by her that she is a women and she has also failed to tick the mark on male or female in the said nomination paper which is violation of Rules 19(3) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012. During the scrutiny the undersigned marked a round with red ink on the said discrepancy on the part of the said nomination paper.
Thus it is clearly established that Smt. Saroj has failed to comply the provision of the Rules 19(3) & 22(2) (a) & (b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012.
Hence, in the above mentioned circumstances and provisions mentioned in the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012, the said nomination paper bearing no.08 of Smt. Saroj for the ward no.03E of EDMC is hereby rejected".
(emphasis supplied)
3. The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from complete non application of mind and is arbitrary. It has been passed in violation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012 (the Rules). The petitioner submits that a perusal of the nomination paper - copy whereof has been placed on record, would show that the petitioner filed along with the nomination paper, her photographs which evidence the fact that she is a woman. Moreover, the petitioner had also declared the name of her `husband' as Sher Singh. The petitioner also seeks to place reliance on the affidavit filed by the petitioner in Form No.21 in compliance of Rule 18(2) of the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
