The court established that a person's right to contest elections and file petitions is strictly governed by statutory provisions, and non-compliance with nomination requirements results in disqualification.

JUDGMENT :

1. By means of the present petition, filed under Section 80, 80-A and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the petitioner has called in question the election of the respondent to the 17th Lok Sabha from 77th Parliamentary Constituency (Varanasi), held in April-May 2019. The petitioner has sought a declaration to the effect that the election of the respondent be declared void and the order passed by the Returning Officer dated 1.5.2019, rejecting his nomination, be set aside. He has also made a prayer for taking action against the Returning Officer for misuse of official powers by invoking Section 123(2), read with Section 134 of the Act.

2. The petition was entertained by this court and notice was issued to the respondent, calling for his reply. In response thereto, the respondent entered appearance. An application was filed by him under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., read with Section 86(1) of the Act, praying for striking off paragraphs-4 to 28 of the petition and also for dismissing the same by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., as it discloses no cause of action and also for the reason that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the same. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application by way of a counter affidavit. Thereafter, Sri Shailendra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Sri Dharmendra Singh, and Sri Satya Pal Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, assisted by Sri Dheeraj Jain, Sri K.R. Singh and Dr. Santosh Jain, were heard at length on the said application.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he filed his nomination for the election as an independent candidate on 24.4.2019. Subsequently, he filed another nomination as official candidate of Samajwadi Party on 29.4.2019, the last date for filing of nomination. He was issued a checklist by Returning Officer on the same date at 1:43 p.m., without raising any objection in regard to the nomination papers. On 30.4.2019, the date fixed for scrutiny, he received a notice from the Returning Officer at 3:03 p.m., followed by another notice on the same date, at 6:15 p.m., alleging that the petitioner had not filed certificate from the Election Commission to the effect that he had not been dismissed from the service of Government of India, on ground of corruption or disloyalty to the State, albeit, a period of five years had not expired from the date of his dismissal on the date of filing of the nominations, in terms of Section 9, read with Section 33(3) of the Act. The petitioner claims to have responded to the said notice by filing his dismissal order dated 19.4.2017, before the Returning Officer, pointing out that although he was dismissed from service of Government of India, but the dismissal was not on the ground of corruption or disloyalty to the State. It is also asserted that after receipt of second notice, he approached the Election Commission of India on the same day, by making an application be registered post and also be sending the same by E-mail, requesting it to issue the certificate contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Act. It is also asserted that on the next date, i.e. 1.5.2019, his Power of Attorney submitted application by hand in the office of the Ele