Back
High Court Of Orissa
P. K. MISRA
ANANGA UDAYA SINGH DEO - Appellant
Versus
RANGA NATH MISHRA - Respondent
ELECTION PETITION 1 Of 1998
Decided On : 08/04/2000
The petitioner challenged the election of respondents 1 and 3 as Members of Council of States (Rajya Sabha) in the election held on 18-6-1998. The petitioner's candidature was sponsored by Biju Janata Dal (B.J.D.) and that of respondents 1 to 3 was sponsored by the Indian National Congress (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'congress'). The petitioner alleged that though he had filed an application before the Returning Officer for supply of certain documents, there was unusual delay in supplying the same to him as he could get the documents only on 8-7-1998. The Returning Officer, in reply, stated that on 20-6-1998 at 4.30 P.M. he received a request from the petitioner for supply of certain documents. As per the requirements of Rule 93 (2) and (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, he sent a FAX message on 23-6-1998 seeking permission/direction of the Election Commission for supply of the documents (Copy of the FAX message is at Annexure-1 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). As no intimation was received from the Election Commission, he sent a reminder on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-11 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). Permission of the Election Commission was received on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-III to the written statement), and copies of the documents as requested by the petitioner were supplied to his authorised person Shri G.H. Sar on 8-7-1998. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner in para 2.1 and 2.2 of the Election Petition are not factually correct and legally tenable. Further, such delay, if any, does not affect the process of election by which respondents 1 to 3 had been declared elected as the notification declaring them elected was issued on 18-6-1998.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of respondents 1 and 3 as Members of Council of States (Rajya Sabha) in the election held on 18-6-1998. The petitioner's candidature was sponsored by Biju Janata Dal (B.J.D.) and that of respondents 1 to 3 was sponsored by the Indian National Congress (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'congress'). The petitioner alleged that though he had filed an application before the Returning Officer for supply of certain documents, there was unusual delay in supplying the same to him as he could get the documents only on 8-7-1998. The Returning Officer, in reply, stated that on 20-6-1998 at 4.30 P.M. he received a request from the petitioner for supply of certain documents. As per the requirements of Rule 93 (2) and (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, he sent a FAX message on 23-6-1998 seeking permission/direction of the Election Commission for supply of the documents (Copy of the FAX message is at Annexure-1 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). As no intimation was received from the Election Commission, he sent a reminder on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-11 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). Permission of the Election Commission was received on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-III to the written statement), and copies of the documents as requested by the petitioner were supplied to his authorised person Shri G.H. Sar on 8-7-1998. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner in para 2.1 and 2.2 of the Election Petition are not factually correct and legally tenable. Further, such delay, if any, does not affect the process of election by which respondents 1 to 3 had been declared elected as the notification declaring them elected was issued on 18-6-1998.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner alleged that though he had filed an application before the Returning Officer for supply of certain documents, there was unusual delay in supplying the same to him as he could get the documents only on 8-7-1998. The Returning Officer, in reply, stated that on 20-6-1998 at 4.30 P.M. he received a request from the petitioner for supply of certain documents. As per the requirements of Rule 93 (2) and (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, he sent a FAX message on 23-6-1998 seeking permission/direction of the Election Commission for supply of the documents (Copy of the FAX message is at Annexure-1 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). As no intimation was received from the Election Commission, he sent a reminder on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-11 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). Permission of the Election Commission was received on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-III to the written statement), and copies of the documents as requested by the petitioner were supplied to his authorised person Shri G.H. Sar on 8-7-1998. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner in para 2.1 and 2.2 of the Election Petition are not factually correct and legally tenable. Further, such delay, if any, does not affect the process of election by which respondents 1 to 3 had been declared elected as the notification declaring them elected was issued on 18-6-1998.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Petition as laid is maintainable? 2. Whether the written statements of the respondents are in accordance with law ? 3. Whether respondent No. 1 - Ranganath Misra is disqualified to act or plead. The constitutional bar renders him disqualified under the Act to be chosen/elected to fill up the seat of the Rajya Sabha. As such, acceptance of his nomination paper for the Rajya Sabha election held in June, 1998 was improper and has materially affected the election. 4. Whether there was any cross-voting by horse-trading of opposition votes ? 5. Whether the counting was conducted according to law and result was declared lawfully? 6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief ?
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner alleged that though he had filed an application before the Returning Officer for supply of certain documents, there was unusual delay in supplying the same to him as he could get the documents only on 8-7-1998. The Returning Officer, in reply, stated that on 20-6-1998 at 4.30 P.M. he received a request from the petitioner for supply of certain documents. As per the requirements of Rule 93 (2) and (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, he sent a FAX message on 23-6-1998 seeking permission/direction of the Election Commission for supply of the documents (Copy of the FAX message is at Annexure-1 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). As no intimation was received from the Election Commission, he sent a reminder on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-11 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). Permission of the Election Commission was received on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-III to the written statement), and copies of the documents as requested by the petitioner were supplied to his authorised person Shri G.H. Sar on 8-7-1998. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner in para 2.1 and 2.2 of the Election Petition are not factually correct and legally tenable. Further, such delay, if any, does not affect the process of election by which respondents 1 to 3 had been declared elected as the notification declaring them elected was issued on 18-6-1998.
Final Decision: The Election Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only ).
P. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) IN this Election Petition, petitioner Ananga Udaya Singh Deo has challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 Ranga Nath Mishra, and respondent No. 3 Manmath Nath Das, as Members of Council of States (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "rajya Sabha") in the election held on 18th June, 1998.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows :-The President of India issued a notification, which was published in the Gazette of India on 30-5-1998, calling upon the Members of the Electoral College of some of the States to elect Members to the Rajya Sabha in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "the Act" ). Pursuant to the aforesaid Presidential Notification, the Election Commission by its notification dated 30-5-1998 called upon the elected Members of the Orissa Legislative Assembly to elect three Members to the Rajya Sabha. In consultation with the Government of Orissa, the Election Commission also issued another notification appointing the Secretary of the Orissa Legislative Assembly as the Returning Officer and the Joint Secretary of the Orissa Legislative Assembly as the Assistant Returning Officer for the said election. The Returning Officer (respondent No. 4 herein), in his turn, issued notice of election in Form No. 1 as per the following programme :- (1)FILING of Nomination Papers. Between 11. 00 a. m. and 3. 00 p. m. on any day (other than public holidays) not later than 6-6-1998. (2)SCRUTINY of Nomination Papers. At 11. 30 a. m. on 8-6-1998. (3) WITHDRAWAL of Nomination Papers. Before 3. 00 p. m. on 10-6-1998. (4)POLLING, if necessary. Between 10. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. on 18-6-1998 in Room No. 54 of the Orissa Legislative Assembly Secretariat Building. Copy of the aforesaid Notification issued by the Returning Officer is Annexure-1 to the Election Petition. Pursuant to such notification, four persons, i. e. , the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3, filed their nomination papers. The petitioner's candidature was sponsored by Biju Janata Dal (B. J. D.) and that of respondents 1 to 3 was sponsored by the Indian National Congress (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'congress' ). On 6-6-1998, the Returning Officer published a list of nominated candidates indicating the names of the aforesaid four persons, After Scrutiny of nomination papers, he again issued a list in Form No. 4 on 8-6-1998 indicating therein that the aforesaid four persons were the validly nominated candidates for the Election to the Council of States, 1998 by the elected members of Orissa Legislative Assembly. After the time of withdrawal was over, on 10-6-1998, when none of the candidates withdrew his candidature, the Returning Officer issued a list of contesting candidates in Form No. 7b indicating the aforesaid four names and the political party which sponsored their candidature. Polling took place on 18-6-1998 in which the candidates polled the following value of votes (value of each vote being assessed at 100) :-1. Ananga Udaya Singh Deo- 35002. Manmath Nath Das- 27003. Ranga Nath Mishra- 40004. Rama Chandra Khuntia- 4000the Orissa Legislative Assembly has got 147 members, and it seems from the aforesaid that in all 142 members had validly cast their votes in the election held on 18-6-1998. In view of the total valid votes tendered, as per calculation, a person having polled votes valued at 3551 or more could be declared elected. As Ranga Nath Mishra and Rama Chandra Khuntia got 4000 value of votes each in their favour, they were declared elected in the first round, leaving Ananga Udaya Singh Deo and Manmath Nath Das (petitioner and respondent No. 3 respectively) for the subsequent rounds. The Returning Officer transferred the excess votes polled by Ranga Nath Mishra and Rama Chandra Khuntia, as per the second preference, in favour of respondent No. 3 Manmath Nath Das. As a result, 444 value of votes were transferred from Ranga Nath Mishra and 440 value of votes were transferred from Rama Chandra Khun
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
