The election petition was maintainable as it was filed within the statutory timeframe, and allegations of non-disclosure of criminal cases required further factual determination.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by learned Election Tribunal, whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 15 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, filed at the instance of petitioner-respondent No.6-Suresh Kumar Verma, was dismissed.

2. The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, an Election Petition under Section 15 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, was filed, at the instance of Aman Dutt Sharma (respondent No.1 herein) for declaring the candidature of petitioner-respondent No.6-Suresh Kumar Verma, as null and void, who was elected as Councillor/Member of the Ward No.2, Municipal Corporation, Panchkula.

3. Further, he had also sought declaration to declare himself to be elected/returned member of Ward No.2, Municipal Corporation, Panchkula as he had secured higher votes to respondent No.6-returned candidate and respondent No.6 be declared to be disqualified from contesting the elections.

4. Therein, it was claimed that respondent No.6-petitioner Suresh Kumar Verma, as per provisions of the ibid Act, was unfit, disqualified and ineligible candidate. It was asserted that the various directions/guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No.536 of 2011, vide judgment dated 25.09.2018, rendered in case titled as 'Public Interest Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.' were not complied with. Therein, it was also asserted that in the nomination papers, imperative information, which was required to be compulsorily disclosed, in the form of an affidavit, was not disclosed. Rather, the petitioner-respondent No.6, with malafide intention, concealed with the material information, vis-a-vis, detail of the pending criminal case against him and status of the same. Also, it was asserted that he had, though, only mentioned about involvement in the criminal case under Section 379 and 411 IPC, whereas, FIR No.73 dated 17.02.2013, was got registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. In fact, there was no mention made of Section 379 IPC, in the FIR. Relating to the same, it was also further averred that the imposition of punishment, qua Sections under which the FIR was registered, were more grave, but however, such information was never disclosed.

5. Furthermore, in the petition, it was asserted that a request for cancellation of candidature of respondent No.6 was made to the Returning Officer-cum-Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, but to no effect. Consequently, the election petition was filed.

6. During the pendency of the election petition, the petitioner (who is respondent No.6 before learned Election Tribunal) had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thereby, seeking rejection of the election petition, on the assertions, inter alia, firstly that it does not disclose the cause of action, as enumerated in Section 15 of the ibid Act, as asserted in the petition; secondly, that the election petition is barred under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Election Act, 1994 and thirdly, that the Returning Officer vide order dated 17.12.2020 had held that the nomination papers of respondent No.6, were accepted being valid, after examination and accordingly, had attained finality. No objections were received and the order of the Returning Officer, was not challenged, in any Court of competent jurisdiction, within limitation. Thus, the election petition under Section 15 of the ibid Act is not maintainable.

7. In the application, while reproducing, in verbatim, the provisions of Sections 15, 18 to 22 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, it was further asserted that the combined reading of all the Sections, establish the statement of fact that no corrupt practice was adopted by the returned candidate/respondent No.6, as provided under Section 22 of the Act. Further, the returned candidate had already been declared successful by obtaining 1813 votes, with excess of 598 votes, over the