Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Prakash Bajaj – Petitioner
Versus
Sri Arun Singh And Ors. – Respondents
Election Petition No. - 1 of 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 –Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 81, 83, 82, 83, 86, 79 – Election petition has been preferred by petitioner calling in question biennial elections of Members of Council of State by Elected Members of Uttar Pradesh, Legislative Assembly, 2020 wherein respondents No.1 to 10 have been declared successful by Returning Officer and it has been prayed that election of duly elected respondents be declared null and void – Held, Court finds that there is conspicuous absence of material facts in respect of the cause of action relating to fact of filing of a valid affidavit in Form-26 – This necessarily leads to infer from a meaningful reading of petition that revised affidavit as brought on record is bereft of material particulars so also pleadings in co-relation to it which creates a lacuna in cause of action – In light of detailed discussions hereinabove, irresistible conclusion is that revised affidavit as annexed to election petition is not as per norms and initial affidavit was defective which rendered nomination of petitioner invalid – Petitioner is not a duly nominated candidate nor can he claim to be a duly nominated candidate at an election, hence, it creates an insurmountable hurdle for petitioner to maintain this petition – Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This judgment has been divided into segments to facilitate analysis. These are :-
| A | Genesis | 2 |
| B | Submissions of counsel for the respondents | 6 |
| C | Submissions of counsel for the election petitioner. | 13 |
| D | Legal Analysis and Discussions. | 22 |
| D(i) | Should the petition be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 33 of RPA, as the petitioner is not a duly nominated candidate since his nomination did not have the requisite number of valid proposers. | 49 |
| D(ii) | Should the petition be dismissed as it lacks material particulars regarding allegations of corrupt practice and for want of affidavit in Form25 in compliance of Section 83(1) of RPA. | 55 |
| D(iii) | Should the petition be dismissed for want of material particulars, cause of action and for want of filing a revised/fresh affidavit in Form-26 in compliance of Sections 33, 83 of RPA read with Rule 4-A of Rules of 1961. | 59 |
| E | Conclusion. | 74 |
A. GENESIS :-
1. This election petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the biennial elections of the Members of Council of State by the Elected Members of Uttar Pradesh, Legislative Assembly, 2020 (Rajya Sabha -2020) dated 02.11.2020 wherein the respondents No.1 to 10 have been declared successful by the Returning Officer and it has been prayed that the election of duly elected respondents be declared null and void.
2. The primary ground of challenge as per the petitioner is that the results of the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidates has been materially affected by improper acceptance of their nomination and the improper rejection of the nomination of the petitioner.
3. Certain dates relevant for adjudication of the controversy are being noticed hereinafter.
(ii) 27th October, 2020:- The last date for filing nomination.
(iii) 28th October, 2020:-The scrutiny of the nomination forms.
(iv) 2nd November, 2020:-The last date for withdrawal of candidature.
(v) 9th November, 2020:- Date of polling.
(vi) 9th November, 2020:-The counting was also scheduled on 9th November, 2020 and the election was to be completed before 11th November, 2020.
4. The ten respondents of this petition along with the election petitioner had filed their respective nominations. During scrutiny of the nominations, objections were raised regarding nomination of the election petitioner and after due consideration, the Returning Officer by means of his order dated 28.10.2020 rejected the nomination of the election petitioner.
5. The election petitioner had moved a complaint/representation against the rejection of his nomination before the Election Commission of India and failing to get a response, the election petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy and thereafter the petitioner has instituted the instant election petition.
6. This Court by means of the order dated 18.12.2020 had issued notices to the respondents. The respondents were duly served and they have put in appearance through their respective counsel. Each of the respondents have filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Few of the respondents namely the respondents No.1, 6 and 10 have also moved separate applications under Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "RPA", in short). In response to the aforesaid applications under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC
Election petitions must plead concise material facts under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act to disclose cause of action; deficient, vague pleadings warrant dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without trial.
An election petition must disclose material facts and particulars; vague allegations without evidence do not establish a cause of action.
The court upheld the returning officer's acceptance of a nomination despite omissions in the affidavit, determining these defects were not substantial and did not materially affect the election resul....
The nomination was rightly rejected due to substantial defects which could not be corrected post-deadline, validating the Returning Officer’s actions.
Election petitions must adhere strictly to statutory requirements regarding disclosures, verification, and affidavits; noncompliance may lead to dismissal at the threshold.
The failure to rectify substantial defects in a nomination paper justifies its rejection under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
An election petition must disclose material facts to establish a cause of action; vague allegations are insufficient for dismissal, and substantial compliance with procedural rules is mandated.
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
