The main legal point established in the judgment is that adjudicating an election petition after the passage of time and subsequent elections, when the relief sought would serve no practical purpose, would be futile and only for academic purposes.

JUDGMENT :

1. In present election petition this Court has passed following order on 29th August, 2023:

“Order on Restoration Application No. 9 of 2023

1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 04th August, 2023, whereby the election petition were dismissed for want of prosecution.

2. Cause shown for absence of learned counsel for election-petitioner, is sufficient. The order dated 04th August, 2023 is recalled and the election petition is restored to their original number. This application is accordingly allowed.

Order on Memo of Petition

1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for election petitioner and Sri K.R. Singh, Advocate for returned candidate.

2. Learned counsel appearing for returned candidate-respondent at the outset submits that since this election petition is pending for last more than nine years and in between relevant period of returned candidate has already been over and even thereafter the term of next Lok Sabha is likely to be over within few months, therefore, there are certain judgments of Supreme Court as well as this Court that at this stage entire exercise would be academic. He further submits that since petitioner has challenged rejection of his nomination form on ground being improper and illegal, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to hear the election petition on merit. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Supreme Court’s judgments in Loknath Padhan vs. Birendra Kumar Sahu, AIR 1974 SC 505; Kashi Nath Mishra vs. Vikramadiya Pandey and others (1998) 9 SCC 735 as well as this Court’s judgment in Chandra Mohan Shukla vs. Anil Dhirubhai Ambani and others, 2010(10) ADJ 63 (LB) and Prempal Singh vs. Satya Pal Singh Baghel and others, (2020) 0 Supreme (All) 658.

3. Learned counsel for election petitioner submits that there are specific averments in election petition that nomination form submitted by returned candidate was a forged document, which contains false declaration also, therefore, it would be an offence under Section 125-A of Representation of People Act, 1951 and in case contention of election petitioner found true, the legal consequence would fall which shall include adverse effect on benefit granted to returned candidate so far as pension etc. are concerned and punitive consequence under Article 104 of the Constitution would also fall. He submits that judgments cited by learned counsel for returned candidate are distinguishable on facts of the case. Learned counsel for petitioner has read out the averments made in election petition specifically para 15 as well as reasons given by Returning Officer while accepting nomination form of returned candidate.

4. Put up on 12th September, 2023 for orders on above issue.”

2. The issue raised before this Court is, whether due to efflux of time this election petition, which is arising out of a dispute of General Election-2014, when not only tenure of that Lok Sabha was already over in 2019 but tenure of present Lok Sabha is about to be over in 2024, i.e. within few months, has become infructuous or if survives, it would only for an academic purpose?

3. In order to appreciate the rival submissions on above referred issue, few facts which are not in dispute are necessary to refer hereinafter.

4. The Election Petitioner-Rajender Kumar, an active member of a National Political Party (Bhartiya Janta Party) for last few decades, was set up as a candidate from 04-Bijnor Parliamentary Constituency of District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh for Parliamentary Election of year 2014. He accordingly submitted his Nomination Form alongwith party symbol accompanied by Form A and Form B in accordance with provisions of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

5. It appears that Returned Candidate was later on set up as a candidate for above referred Parliamentary Constituency and he also submitted Nomination Form alongwith all requisite documents.

6. The Election-Petitioner filed objections to Nomination Form submitted by Returned Candidate being