Honble ARORA, J. — The petitioner,whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, Rajsamand, has called in question the election of Mr.Shanti Lal from Rajsamand Assembly Constituency No.l (reserved) on the ground of improper rejection of her nomination paper and,also, on the ground of commission of corrupt practices in elections by Shri Shanti Lal.

(2). A Notification under Section 15(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short/the Act) was issued by the Election Commission calling upon the various constituencies to elect Members for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly including the Rajsamand Assembly Constituency No.l,which was reserved for Scheduled Caste. As per the programme,issued by the Election Commission under Section 30 of the Act, October 19,1993 was the last date fixed for filing the nomination,20.10.1993 was the date for scrutiny of the nominations,22nd October,1993 was the last date for withdrawal of the nomination(s) and 11.11.1993 was the date oh which the polling was to be held. The petitioner, as alleged by her, being a member of the Scheduled Caste,was eligible to contest the election from this reserved constituency. Petitioners candidature was sponsored by the Indian National Congress. She, therefore,as a candidate of the Indian National Congress, filed her nomination from this constituency. In all fifteen candidates filed their nominations from this reserved constituency. At the time of scrutiny, the eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election from this reserved constituency was challenged by one Smt. Pushpa Khatri on the ground that by birth the petitioner is Goswami by caste, which is" not recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan and she is not the legally wedded wife of Mr.Ratan Lal Khatik because at the time of her alleged marriage with Mr. Ratan Lal Khatik, his earlier marriage with Smt. Chhagni was subsisting. The Returning Officer,after satisfying himself that Dr.(Smt.) Shipra does not possess the necessary qualification for contesting the election from this reserved con-stituency,accepted the objections raised by Smt. Pushpa Khatri and rejected the nomination of the petitioner by holding, firstly, that Dr.(Smt.) Shipra is not the member of the Scheduled Caste and, secondly, that she has not filed the necessary declaration under Section 33(2) of the Act specifying the particular caste to which she belongs. The nominations of other fourteen candidates were found in order and they were accepted by the Returning Officer. After the scrutiny, seven of the candidates, whose nominations were found in order, withdrew from the contest and the election, which took place on 11-11-93, was contested by seven persons and after election,Mr.Shanti Lal (the respondent) was declared elected to represent the aforesaid reserved constituency.

(3). The petitioner called in question the election of Mr. Shanti Lal from Rajsamand. Reserved Constituency, by this election petition. The respondent, after service of the summons and the copy of the election petition,without filing reply to the election petition,raised certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the election petition.

(4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the election petition,filed by the petitioner,deserves to be dismissed on the grounds that :(i) the election petition has not been properly verified by the petitioner as it does not- disclose the source of information with respect to Paragraphs Numbers 9 to 12 of the election petition, which have been verified as true on the basis of the information received; (ii) there is no proper verification of Annexure 4, Annexure 5 and Annexure 6; (iii) Smt.Pushpa Khatri,who raised the objection and the Returning Officer whose order has been challenged, have not been made parties to the proceedings, (iv) the cost has not been deposited in accordance with the Rules; (V) the election petition does not disclose any cause of action and no triab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document