Back
2010 Supreme(All) 566
2010 (81) ALR 356
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Pradeep Kant, J. and Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Dinesh Pratap Singh
Vs.
State of U.P. and others.
Writ Petition No. 12155 (MB) of 2009
Decided on: February 11, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of a nomination paper by the Returning Officer limits the scope of interference with the election process, and questions regarding the rejection of nomination papers may be addressed through the remedy of an election petition.
Headnote:
Concealment - Election Nomination - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 33, 36, 125-A - Form 26 affidavit - Deliberate concealment of pending criminal case - Rejection of nomination paper
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the acceptance of the nomination paper of opposite party no. 5 by the Returning Officer for the Member of Legislative Council for Raebareli Local Authority Constituency. The petitioner alleged deliberate concealment of pending criminal cases against opposite party no. 5 in the nomination paper.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the questions raised did not require an answer in the present writ petition, and as the nomination paper had been accepted by the Returning Officer, no interference could be made with the election process. The questions raised were left open, and the petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may pursue the remedy of an election petition after the elections are over.
Issues: The issues involved the deliberate concealment of pending criminal cases in the nomination paper, the relevance of Form 26 affidavit, and the grounds for rejection of nomination paper under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the acceptance of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer and the lack of interference with the election process. The Court did not find it necessary to address the questions raised in the writ petition at that stage.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to pursue the remedy of an election petition after the elections are over.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment in Dinesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.:
- Core Holding: The High Court held that once a nomination paper is accepted by the Returning Officer, the court cannot interfere with the election process at that stage. The petitioner was advised to pursue the remedy of an election petition after the elections are over [25000547180021][25000547180023].
- Reason for Dismissal: The Court determined that the questions raised regarding the concealment of criminal cases did not require an answer in the present writ petition because the nomination had already been accepted [25000547180017][25000547180022].
- Allegations of Concealment: The petitioner alleged that opposite party no. 5 deliberately concealed a pending criminal case (Case Crime No. 87 of 2002) involving serious charges (IPC Sections 420, 406, 467, 469, 47, 120-B, 504) in the Form 26 affidavit [25000547180003][25000547180008].
- Defense on Knowledge: The defense argued that the summons were not effectively served on the candidate before the filing of the nomination paper, as the police report indicated the candidate was out for election purposes when the summons were pasted on his door, meaning he lacked knowledge of the case at the time of filing [25000547180011][25000547180013].
- Legal Argument on Form 26: The Returning Officer and the defense argued that mere pendency of a case (even with a chargesheet) is not sufficient grounds for rejection under Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and that Form 26 is not part of the scrutiny under Section 33 [25000547180005][25000547180009][25000547180010] (!) (!) .
- Procedural Remedy: The Court clarified that challenges regarding the rejection or acceptance of nomination papers, once accepted, must be addressed through an election petition post-election, rather than via a writ petition during the election process [25000547180001][25000547180017].
- Specific Case Details: The election was for the Member of Legislative Council for Raebareli Local Authority Constituency, with the last date for filing nominations being 20.12.09, and the case was decided on February 11, 2010 [25000547180001].
(Pradeep Kant, J.)
1. This writ petition challenges the acceptance of the nomination paper of opposite party no. 5 by the Returning Officer for being a candidate for member of Legislative Council of 9 Raebareli Local Authority Constituency.
2. The elections for Member of Legislative Council for Raebareli Local Authority Constituency was notified and the last date for filing nomination papers was 20.12.09. By the last date, four persons, namely, the petitioner, Dinesh Pratap Singh, Raja Rakesh Pratap Singh, opposite party no. 5 and one Dinesh Singh, filed nomination papers.
3. Leaving aside other facts, the relevant point is that the opposite party no. 5 while filing his nomination paper alongwith an affidavit in the proforma, which was prescribed, he did not give the correct details of the pending criminal cases against him.
4. The case of the petitioner is that there was a criminal case pending against the opposite party no. 5 being Case Crime No. 87 of 2002, P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow under Sections 420, 406, 467, 469, 47, 120-B and 504 IPC, in which chargesheet has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and summons had also been issued to opposite party no. 5. Further case is that despite service of summons upon opposite party no. 5 and he having full knowledge of the criminal case, he deliberately did not mention about the said case in the prescribed column of the affidavit and thus, he filed incomplete nomination paper deliberately.
There was another case, namely, Case Crime No. 340 of 1999 under Section 307, P.S. Kaisarbagh, Lucknow, which is also said to have been concealed but during the course of arguments, Dr. L.P. Misra stated that he does not press the objections filed by one Rakesh Singh with respect to the aforesaid criminal case and confines his case only with respect to the other criminal case, namely, Case Crime No. 87 of 2002.
The petitioner filed objections against the nomination of opposite party no. 5, clearly indicating the pendency of the aforesaid case, asserting that he has deliberately concealed material facts in the nomination paper, therefore, his nomination paper is liable to be rejected.
5. The Returning Officer vide impugned order dated 22.12.09 rejected the objection of the petitioner as well as other objections filed by one other candidate Rakesh Singh, who had mentioned about the other case, namely, Case Crime No. 340 of 1999 under Section 307, P.S. Kaisarbagh, Lucknow.
6. The Returning Officer in his order has taken note of the Handbook For Returning Officer of Election Commission of India, which says that nomination papers should not be rejected on flimsy grounds. He also took into consideration Form 2A to 2E and has stated that only Form 2E is relevant in the present elections.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that concealing the aforesaid information of pending criminal case, while filing an affidavit, which forms part of the nomination paper, and thus, giving incorrect and incomplete information, which also amounts to deliberate concealment of the pendency of criminal case, was sufficient to reject the nomination paper but the Returning Officer, without considering the specific objection of the petitioner, rejected the objections and accepted the nomination. To the objections filed by the petitioner, the opposite party no. 5 also filed his own reply.
8. Sri Anupam Mehrotra, appearing for opposite party no. 5, has opposed the writ petition, mainly on the ground that once the election process has started, the question as to whether nomination paper was rightly accepted or not, is a question which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, after the elections are over.
9. Besides the aforesaid plea, he also urged that the Returning Officer has given absolutely correct reasoning that mere alleged pendency of the cases in courts, shall not be a ground for rejection of nomination paper and that the law requires disclosure of only those cases in Form 26 affidavi
