IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Shiv Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Hanuman Sharan and Another – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 581 of 2024
Decided On : 28-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Alok Kumar Mishra learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.1.
2. Since the pleadings have already been exchanged, accordingly with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner is the returned candidate having been declared successful on the post of Pradhan of village Paidi, Development Block and Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich, in Panchayat Elections held in the year 2021. The private respondent no.1 being an unsuccessful candidate assailed the election of the petitioner by filing an election petition before the Prescribed Authority which was registered as Case No.2880 of 2021. The petitioner contested the said election petition and after framing of issues, the party lead evidence and at the end stage of the trial before the Prescribed Authority the private respondent no.1 filed an application alongwith which the alleged photocopy of the nomination paper of the petitioner alongwith its enclosures were filed before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner contested the said application by stating that the photocopy filed by the respondent no.1 was forged and fabricated, hence the original may be summoned from the office of the Returning Officer. In the meantime, the election petition filed by the private respondent no.1 was dismissed on merits by means of order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority.
4. The private respondent no.1 being aggrieved against the said order preferred a revision before the District Judge, Bahraich. During the pendency of the revision, it was again pressed by the private respondent no.1 that the nomination paper of the petitioner was not complete; inasmuch as it suffered from concealment of the criminal antecedent. Since the petitioner had concealed his criminal antecedents, hence his nomination paper was defective, consequently the election petition was liable to be allowed on this score alone.
5. Since the petitioner had already contested and stated that the private respondent no.1 had not indicated the source from where he procured the photocopy of the alleged nomination paper said to be of the petitioner, hence the original may be summoned from the office of the Returning Officer. Considering the aforesaid, the Revisional Court by means of its order dated 06.10.2023 directed that the original nomination paper alongwith its enclosures to be summoned.
6. In furtherance of the said order, the Assistant Returning Officer sent a set of photocopy stating that they were the nomination paper alongwith the enclosures relating to the petitioner. At this stage, it was again pointed out to the Revisional Court by the petitioner that since the Court had required the original to be placed and the Assistant Returning Officer had sent only the photocopy, hence it was not complete compliance of the order dated 06.10.2023. The revisional Court once again directed the Assistant Returning Officer to furnish the original nomination paper of the petitioner alongwith its enclosures.
7. Yet again the Assistant Returning Officer submitted the very same set of documents but alongwith a covering letter dated 16.11.2023 stating that the originals were not traceable and were mislaid, hence the said photocopies were certified by the Assistant Returning Officer after comparing it with the one available on the website of the election commission and sent it to the Court.
8. In the meantime, the petitioner got lucky and he also got a photocopy of his nomination paper alongwith all enclosures which had been retained by one of the proposers of the petitioner, namely, Tirath Ram Tiwari. Having received the said documents, the petitioner made an application for taking additional evidence on record before the Revisional Court and the said application was allowed on 02.12.2023. While allowing the said application, the Revi
Virendra Sing Kushwaha Vs. VII Additional District Judge
The Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. H. B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
The court affirmed the right to lead secondary evidence when originals are unavailable, emphasizing the necessity of allowing parties to prove their documents for a fair trial.
The Revisional Court must allow parties to prove documents taken on record as evidence, ensuring fairness in election proceedings.
(1) Perjury – Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable. Court must be satisfied that such an in....
The failure to rectify substantial defects in a nomination paper justifies its rejection under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The nomination was rightly rejected due to substantial defects which could not be corrected post-deadline, validating the Returning Officer’s actions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.