Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
ALOK VERMA, J.
Sureshchandra Bhandari - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Neena Vikram Verma & Ors. - Respondents
Election Petition No.31 of 2014
Decided On : 20-11-2017
ELECTION PETITION - Improper acceptance of nomination papers - Incomplete affidavit - Material effect on election result - Pleading and proof - Void election - Section 100(1)(d)(i)(iv) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.1 for Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly held in November 2013 on the ground that the Election Commission accepted respondent No.1's nomination papers despite blank columns and incomplete information in the accompanying affidavit, which was a violation of the directions issued by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court. The petitioner also alleged that the acceptance of such incomplete nomination papers materially affected the election result.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court found that respondent No.1's affidavit was incomplete as many columns were left blank and it contained mathematical errors. 2. The Court held that the returning officer was under a duty to intimate respondent No.1 about these deficiencies in the affidavit and to grant her an opportunity to rectify them, but he failed to do so. 3. The Court also found that the acceptance of the incomplete affidavit amounted to accepting the nomination paper improperly and was in violation of the directions issued by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court. 4. The Court further held that the improper acceptance of respondent No.1's nomination papers materially affected the election result as it gave her an unfair advantage over other candidates.
Issues: 1. Whether respondent No.1's affidavit was incomplete and contained blank columns. 2. Whether the acceptance of such incomplete affidavit amounted to accepting the nomination paper improperly. 3. Whether the improper acceptance of respondent No.1's nomination papers materially affected the election result. 4. Whether the petition was maintainable in the absence of a specific pleading that the election result was materially affected.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 was incomplete as it contained blank columns and mathematical errors. 2. The Court also held that the returning officer was under a duty to intimate respondent No.1 about these deficiencies and to grant her an opportunity to rectify them, but he failed to do so. 3. The Court further held that the acceptance of the incomplete affidavit amounted to accepting the nomination paper improperly and was in violation of the directions issued by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court. 4. The Court also held that the improper acceptance of respondent No.1's nomination papers materially affected the election result as it gave her an unfair advantage over other candidates. 5. The Court also held that the petition was maintainable even in the absence of a specific pleading that the election result was materially affected, as the improper acceptance of respondent No.1's nomination papers itself led to the conclusion that the election result was materially affected.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and declared the election of respondent No.1 void. The Court also directed the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
1. This Election Petition is filed under Section 81 read with Sections 80, 80-A and 100(1)(d)(i)(iv) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the RP Act”) challenging the election of respondent No.1 for Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly held in November 2013.
2. It is not in dispute that the Election Commission of India and Governor of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification dated 01.11.2013 and released the schedule of Vidhan Sabha Election to be held in the month of November, 2013. According to the schedule, a date 09.11.2013 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers and on that day at 10:00 a.m. in the morning, the Election Officer started scrutiny of nominations. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is a voter and resident of Constituency No.201, Dhar (General) of Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and his name appears at Sr. No.464 in the voter list. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 namely Neena Vikram Verma was a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party and contested an election and was declared as the Return Candidate.
3. According to the petitioner, in compliance of directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India; AIR 2014 SC 344 dated 13.09.2013, directions were issued vide letter bearing No.576/3/2013 SDR dated 30.09.2013. According to the directions issued, it was specifically mentioned that all the columns of affidavit should be filled and no column should be left blank, however, in the affidavit submitted by respondent No.1, 24 columns were left blank and such an affidavit should not have been accepted by the Election Officer and, as such, her affidavit was wrongly accepted. The Election Officer wrote a letter on 18.11.2013 to the Observer of the Election, bearing No.5064 in which he admitted that respondent No.1 left many columns blank and according to the petitioner, by accepting such nomination papers, the election officer acted in a partisan manner and he did not follow the directions and instructions issued by Election Commission of India.
4. The petitioner pointed out the columns in which entries were either left blank or in which wrong entries were made and in this respect his relevant portion of the pleadings may be reproduced here :-
^^¼,p½ ¼1½ ;g fd vH;FkhZ Jherh uhuk foØe oekZ ds }kjk uke funsZ'ku i= ds lkFk layXu 'kiFki= tks fd ÁFke n`"V~;k v/kwjk 'kiFki= Árhr gksrk gS] tSls fd Ák:i 26 ds Hkkx ^^d** ds fcUnq Øekad 4 ds 1 esa uke 'kh"kZd ds varxZr Lo;a 'kCn vafdr fd;k tkuk] fdUrq vH;FkhZ dk uke vFkkZr Jherh uhuk foØe oekZ dks vafdr ugha fd;k tkuk] tcfd fcUnq Øekad fd;k tkuk] tcfd fcUnq Øekad 7&v esa fVIi.kh ds ckn cuh gq;h lkj.kh esa Lo;a ds uhps vH;FkhZ ds }kjk viuk uke Jherh uhuk foØe oekZ vafdr fd;k x;k gS] vr% ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd uke 'kh"kZd ds vkxs Lo;a fy[kk tkuk gh i;kZIr gSA Li"V gS fd vH;FkhZ ds }kjk uke 'kh"kZd okys LrEHk@[kkus dks [kkyh NksM+k x;k gSA blh Ádkj Hkkx ^^d** ds fcUnq Øekad 3] 4 ,oa 5 ls lEcfU/kr lHkh dkWye dks [kkyh NksM+k x;k gSA Hkkx ^^d** ds fcUnq Øekad 7 ¼[k½ ¼2½ ds 'kh"kZd fodkl lfUuekZ.k vkfn ds ek/;e ls Hkwfe ij fofu/kku ds lkeus vafdr nksuks dkWye dks fjDr NksMk x;k gSA ¼lqfo/kk ds fy;s fjV ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu 'kiFki= dh Áekf.kr Áfr esa [kkyh LrEHk@[kkus dks ihys ekdZj ds }kjk fpfUgr fd;k x;k gS½A
¼2½ blh Ádkj Hkkx ^^d** ds fcUnq Øekad 7 ¼[k½ ¼3½ esa lEifRr dh fLFkfr fujad n'kkZ;h x;h gS fdUrq fcUnq Øekad 7 ¼[k½ ¼3½ vfUre 'kh"kZd vuqekfur pkyw cktkj ewY; ds lkeus :i;s 5]00]000@& vafdr fd;s x;s gSA bl dkWye esa fcUnq Øekad 7 ¼[k½ ¼3½ esa n'kkZ;h x;h dqy lEifRr dk cktkj ewY; tks fd fujad gS] dks n'kkZ;k tkuk Fkk] fdUrq fujad ds LFkku ij :i;s 5]00]000@& n'kkZ;s x;s] tks fd Hkzked tkudkjh ds vUrxZr vkrs gSA
¼3½ Hkkx ^^d** ds fcUnq Øekad 7 ¼[k½ ¼5½ ds 'kh"kZd iwoksZDr ¼1½ ls ¼5½ dk dqy pkyw cktkj ewY; esa lg 'kh"kZd Lo;a ds vUrxZr :i;s 20]40]000@& vafdr fd;k x;k gS] tcfd
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
