The Election Commission of India issued a notification to hold general election in 5-Udhampur Parliamentary Con­stituency on 28-3-2009. The last date for nomination was 4-4-2009 whereas scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 6-4-2009. The election was scheduled on 23-4-2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua was appointed as Returning Officer for the said Constituency. The result was declared on 16-5-2009 and respondent No. 2 was de­clared elected from the aforesaid Constitu­ency. He represented Indian National Con­gress. The election of respondent No. 2 has been questioned by the petitioner in the present petition.

2. In pursuance to the notification, 14 can­didates had filed their nomination papers, which included respondent No. 2 also. The Returning Officer accepted 14 nominations, which included the nomination of the peti­tioner, respondents 2 and 3. The election has been questioned by the petitioner, essentially, on the ground that nomination of respondent No. 2, who was sponsored by Indian Na­tional Congress, a recognized party was no­tified by one J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, which did not exist as a regis­tered party. Secondly, it is contended that the nomination papers of resondent No. 3 were not in accordance with the rules, instructions and the guidelines of the Election Commis­sion of India as the Forms A and B were not filled in all respects as is mandatory under the guidelines and rules framed by Election Commission of India. Besides, the oath was not taken in accordance with the mandate of law.

3. The factual matrix laid down by the petitioner in questioning the election of re­spondent No. 2 reveals that authorization given by the General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, Shri Saifuddin Soz, Presi­dent, Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress Committee to nominate a candidate for J. and K. was done before notification to hold elec­tion of the Constituency was issued. Form-B was signed by the person who claimed to be the President of J. and K. Pradesh Con­gress (I) Committee, Jammu which party did not exist as a registered party with the Elec­tion Commission of India.

4. What is being contended is that the nomination of respondent No. 2 by Profes­sor Saifuddin Soz as resident of J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee was illegal as no such party was registered, with the Election Commission of India, therefore, acceptance of nomination papers of respon­dent No. 2 was improper.

5. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that Forms-A and B were not duly filled up in all respects as is mandatory under In­struction S. No. 19 in the Compendium of Instructions on Conduct of Elections - Volume-II which requires that notices in Form-A and Form B should be signed in original and filled in all respects. Form-A signed by the President of BJP did not mention any date, which defeated the requirement of Form-A as it should have been duly filled up in all respects. Form-B signed by the State President of BJP also did not fill the column relating to date, which clearly violate the command of the Election Commission's let­ter dated 14-1-2009. Form of respondent No. 3 was wrongly accepted. Improper acceptance of forms has materially affected the outcome of the result in the said parliamentary elec­tion.

6. Except respondent Nos. 1 and 2, other respondents have not chosen to file their ob­jections.

7. It is contended by the answering respon­dents that none of the objection raised has ever been taken before the Returning Officer. It is stated that the signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz as an authorized person to nominate the candidate for and on behalf of the Indian National Congress is clearly vis­ible in Form-A. Professor Saifuddin Saz was authorized by the Indian National Congress to nominate the candidate, for and on behalf of the parties. His three specimen signatures are also appended in the Form-A. In Form-B, the signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz are also appended which tally with the signatures in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document