JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Ajit Borthakur, J.

Heard Mr. R.D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Ajin Apang, learned senior counsel/standing counsel, for respondent State Election Commission, Arunachal Pradesh; Mr. Duge Soki, learned Addl. Seni or Government Advocate, for respondent No.2; and Mr. Muk Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Karyom Dabi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private Respondent No. 3.

2. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of judgment & order, dated 16.11.2016, passed by the Arunachal Pradesh State Election Tribunal in Case No. PRET-06 of 2013, on the ground of arbitrariness and non-application of judicious mind.

3. According to the petitioner, a petition was filed by Respondent No. 3, herein, for quashing the election of the petitioner to the office of the Anchal Samiti Member ('ASM', for short), under 46 - Dadang Anchal Samiti ('46-DAS', for short) on the ground that the petitioner was improperly declared elected unopposed due to Respondent No. 2's rejection of his nomination on the ground of double enrolment. It was an admitted position that private Respondent No. 3's name was enrolled as a voter, both, in Itanagar Municipal Council ('IMC', for short) and 46-DAS. The case of the petitioner is that while disposing of the case in favour of Respondent No. 3, the State Election Tribunal ('SET', for short) did not address the primary issue of whether double enrolment could be a ground for rejection of nomination. It also did not decide the case on the vital point on whether rejection of nomination is strictly limited to Rule 12(2) (a) to (d) of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2001). The SET did not decide whether Rule 12(4) i.e. The Returning Officer shall not reject nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of substantial character." is totally circumscribed by Rule 12(2) (a) to (d).

4. According to the petitioner, the SET held that double enrolment was a non-issue and inconsequential by holding that an Anchal Samiti and a Municipality are distinct and separate constituencies, which is in violation of the provisions of section 108 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act 1997, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1997). which clearly prohibits enrolment of one person simultaneously in Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Municipality. According to the petitioner, Anchal Samit and Municipality are the bodies of local self governance, one being Rural and the other being Urban.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the instant petitioner is the returned ASM candidate of the 46-DAS Constituency. The candidature of Respondent No. 3 who had filed his nomination for election to the said Constituency was rejected by the Returning Officer ('RO', for short) during the scrutiny held on 25.04.2013, which led to the petitioner being elected unopposed since there were only two candidates. Being aggrieved, the private Respondent No. 3 filed Election Petition before the Arunachal Pradesh State Election Commission which was registered as Case No. PRET-06/2013.

6. In the meantime, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued Notification for conducting Panchayati Raj Election including Gram Panchayat, Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad Members all over the State wherein, the date for filing of nomination was fixed from 16.04.2013 and the date of polling was fixed on 16.05.2013. The case of Respondent No. 3 is that he being a permanent resident of Apop Sango Village of Sagalee district, filed his nomination papers on 22.04.2013 for the post of ASM from 46-DAS Constituency, as an independent candidate, lire Petitioner too filed his nomination papers as an INC candidate. It was alleged by respondent No. 3 that the RO arbitrarily and illegally rejected his nomination paper during scrutiny, on 25.04.2013, without assigning any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document