Honble TATIA, J.–The petitioner, by this election petition under Section 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act of 1951), has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 who was declared elected by the Returning Officer as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Sardarpura Constituency of City of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, on 4.12.2003.

(2). Brief facts of the case as stated in the petitioner are that, the petitioner on an assurance given by the President of Indian National Lok Dal submitted his nomination paper before the Returning Officer, certified copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-1. The nomination of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer vide order dated 15.11.2003 on the two grounds; firstly, out of ten proposers, names of six proposers are not available in the part number of the voter list and at the roll numbers which were disclosed by the proposers and the petitioner in petitioners nomination paper (Annexure-1). and second, on the ground that the petitioner could not submit authorisation from the political party concerned, in the forms A and B as required under sub-clause (b) and (d) of Rule 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

(3). According to the petitioner, the above mentioned objections were raised by the Returning Officer suo motu. As per Sub-section (5) of Section 36 of the Act of 1951, the Returning Officer was under statutory obligation, to grant time and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to meet with the objections raised by the Returning Officer. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner made oral request but time was not granted and the petitioners nomination was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioner placed on record certified copies of the entries evidencing the availability of the names of all the above petitioners six proposers in the voter list for the Sardarpura Constituency itself whose names were not found by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of the petitioners nomination and on the basis of which the petitioners candidature was rejected by the Returning Officer. In view of the above facts, according to the petitioner, the petitioners candidature was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and consequentially, election of the respondent is liable to be set aside.

(4). Learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments also submitted the petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer on the ground that the petitioner was not given time to submit his political partys authorisation letter. So far as challenge to action of the Returning Officer in taking decision about petitioners nomination as political partys candidate is concerned, a lok at petitioners pleadings are relevant and necessary for deciding respondents application seeking rejection of the election petition on the various grounds along with on ground of various pleadings, therefore, they are quoted in this judgment at relevant place.

(5). The petitioner also submitted in the election petition that, aggrieved against the rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning officer, he submitted a representation to the Chief Election Commissioner, Delhi and he placed on record the copy of the said representation which is marked as Annexure-10.

(6). Respondent No.1, returned candidate, submitted an application under Section 81 read with Section 83 and 86 of the Act of 1951 and under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. and submitted that the election petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected as no cause of action has been disclosed in the petition. Even from the perusal of Annexure-4 to Annexure-9, it is clear that part number and serial number of the electoral roll relating to the petitioners proposers, mentioned in the certified copy of the electoral roll for the Sardarpura Constituency are different from the one menti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document