2020 Supreme(All) 1306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, J.
Dharmendra Yadav - Appellants
Vs.
Sanghmitra Maurya - Respondent
Election Petition No. 14 of 2019
Decided On : 10-04-2020

Headnote:

Representatives of Peoples Act, 1951 - Section 80, 80-A and 81 - Representation of People Act, 2002 - Section 33B - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Civil Procedure Code - Order-6 - Rule 16 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) - Parliamentary Election – Rigorous Imprisonment - Whether nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance - Whether candidate was accused in any pending criminal case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and in which charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken by a court of law - Case are that petitioner other candidates including returned candidate filed his nomination as a candidate of said Parliamentary Election - In view of Section 33, 33A, and 34 of Act read with provisions of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and as required for valid nomination he has also appended affidavit in Form by disclosing all his civil and criminal antecedents for the said Parliamentary Constituency - Returned candidate has also filed her nomination as a candidate - Scrutiny of nomination paper was in Office of District Magistrate Returning Officer - Nomination paper of election petitioner was found to be valid in all respects therefore Returning Officer accepted his nomination - Out of twenty Four candidates who have filed their nomination only nine nomination papers including that of election petitioner and returned candidate/respondent were accepted and nomination of sixteen other candidates were rejected by District Magistrate Returning Officer - Which was date of counting and declaration of result returned candidate/respondent had won Parliamentary Election from said Parliamentary Constituency and obtained votes whereas election petitioner had obtained votes – Held, Court gives such a finding would have resulted in rejection effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void - Otherwise it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned - This cannot be countenance - Considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused three applications filed by learned counsel for the respondents and material brought on record - From pleadings as have been made in the present election petition it appears that the election petitioner has challenged the election of the returned candidate-respondent on the ground that it is a case of improper acceptance of nomination of the returned candidate-respondent - Concise statement regarding material fact on which the petitioner relies as a ground under section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Act of 1951 setting aside the election of the respondent-returned candidate and deciding it null and void as has also been stated in election petition - It further appears from the affidavit filed in Form of nomination form regarding non disclosure of marital status of the returned candidate-respondent and other facts regarding non disclosure of the assets of the spouse etc. is a ground for challenging of election of respondent along with other grounds which are necessary to be established during the course of trial by the election petitioner for the election of the respondent be declared as null and void - In Court considered opinion contention advanced of learned counsel for the respondent made in support of the application under section 86 (1) of the Act of 1951 and under Order 7 Rule 11 that the petitioner has not disclosed the material fact or the concise statement relied upon by petitioner in the election petition raises no cause of action is wholly unfounded - It is well settled law that if the election petition speaks about the material facts and concise statement on which the election petitioner relies upon are stated in the election petition, same should not be thrown at the threshold. Considering judgments of and the pleadings as have been set out in the present election petition aforesaid applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 86 (1) of Act of 1951 and under Order 6, Rule-16 C.P.C. respectively are hereby rejected – Order accordingly