Back
2006 Supreme(J&K) 68
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Y.P. Nargotra, J.
Ch. Liaqat Ali - Appellant
Versus
Puran Singh & Ors. - Respondent
EP No. 7/2002
Decided On : 03 April, 2006
Advocate For Appellant: A.V. Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: Nemo
Advocate For Appellant: Y.E. Tak
The interpretation of the definition of recognized political party and the requirement for valid nomination under the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957.
Headnote:
Election Petition - Challenging election of respondent No. 1 to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly - Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957, Section 10.2, Section 44 - The court discussed the rejection of nomination papers, the definition of recognized political party, and the requirement for valid nomination under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency, citing improper rejection of nomination papers and corrupt practices. The petitioner's evidence included allegations of misleading voters and spreading communal hatred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of nomination papers of respondent No. 9 was proper as he failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under the rules. The court also dismissed the allegations of corrupt practices against respondent No. 1, stating that they were not cogently proved.
Issues: Improper rejection of nomination papers, corrupt practices, and the interpretation of the definition of recognized political party under the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of recognized political party and the requirement for valid nomination under the Act, emphasizing that for the purpose of the Act, recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Final Decision: The election petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:-
Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.
3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party. The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers sof respondent No.9 saying:-
"The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:-
"If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers."
4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.
5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.
6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.
7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No.1 Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.
8. I have heard the learned
