IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Subhash Kumar Sojatia – Petitioner
Versus
Devilal Dhakad and others – Respondents
Election Petition No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 31-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to legislative election based on allegations against a candidate. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of corrupt practices for election candidacy. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. non-disclosure of dues and sought votes based on community. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. response to allegations and effort to prove innocence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. burden of proof in election disputes. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 31) |
| 6. conclusive evidence led to dismissal of the election petition. (Para 73 , 100 , 154 , 155) |
ORDER :
Anil Verma, J.
This Election Petition under section 80, 81, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d) read with section 123(2), 123(3) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short “RP Act”) has been filed by the petitioner/defeated candidate with the symbol of hand (Panja) calling in question the election of respondent No. 1 Devilal Dhakad, a returned candidate with the symbol of lotus (Kamal) from the Constituency No. 227, Garoth, District Mandsaur in the General Election for M. P. State Legislative Assembly held in November, 2018 and seeking relief to set aside the election of the respondent No. 1 and for declaring himself as an elected candidate.
2. It is not disputed that in the aforesaid election the candidate including the respondent No. 1 Devilal Dhakad, an official candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party and petitioner Subhash Kumar Sojatia, an official candidate of Indian National Congress, are in the fray. The polling was held on 28-11-2018, counting of votes took place on 11-2-2018 and on the same day result was declared, in which the respondent No. 1 Devilal Dhakad secured 75946 valid votes and he was declared returned candidate. His nearest contestant/petitioner Subhash Kumar Sojatia secured 73838 votes. The respondent No. 1 defeated the petitioner by margin of 2108 votes.
3. The petitioner Subhash Kumar Sojatia has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 alleging that the respondent No. 1 has filed his nomination Form No. 26 along with the affidavit on 9-11-2018 and in para 8 of his affidavit he has categorically mentioned that there are no government dues against him. The respondent No. 1 has not paid dues of diversion taxes of Rs. 588/- for the period of 2011-12 to 2017-18 for his property situated at village Bhanpura, Patwari Halka No. 10, Survey No. 1694, which is owned and possessed by him. This fact has been admitted by the respondent No. 1 in para 7 of the affidavit. Certified copy of response of Tehsildar, Bhanpura revealing outstanding diversion dues of respondent No. 1 received under the provisions of M. P. Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010 and the receipt dated 19-12-2018 issued by the Sanchalak, Lok Seva Kendra, Bhanpura are filed as Annexure P/7. Respondent No. 1 has taken a house at Survey No. 1362, Bhanpura on rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the State of M. P. and also obtained electricity connection of the said house, respondent No. 1 has applied for a No Objection Certificate to the Tehsildar. The respondent No. 1 has deliberately suppressed all these material facts in his affidavit. Electricity bill dated 31-12-2018 of the aforesaid leased premises bearing mobile number of the respondent No. 1 would indicate that the said premise is in the possession of the respondent No. 1, whereas the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 categorically states that he has not taken any government property on lease, thereby false information has been given in the said affidavit.
4. Petitioner further contended that the respondent No. 1 has not paid the rent dues of government accommodation till 30-11-2018 amounting to Rs. 29,700/-. The copy of the electricity bill dated 31-12-2018 and the List of Defaulters dated 18-12-2018 issued by the Tehsildar, Bhanpura has been filed. Demand notice issued by the Tehsildar, Bhanpura to respondent No. 1 demanding payment of Rs. 21,000/- on or before 25-
Anvar P. V. vs. P. K. Basheer and others
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others
Ashraf Kokkur vs. K. V. Abdul Khader
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Bishwanath Raj; Madholal Sindhu
Electrosteel Castings Limited vs. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others
Kattinokkula Murali Krishna vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and others
Kishan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and others
Lakshmi Raman Acharya vs. Chandan Singh
Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen
Lok Prahari vs. Union of India and others
Mehta and others vs. Union of India and others
Mopuragundu Thippeswamy vs. K. Eranna
Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another
Om Prakash Berlia and another vs. Unit Trust of India and others
Prataprai N. Kothari vs. John Braganza
R. P. Moidutty vs. P. P. Kunju Mohammad
Range Forest Officer vs. S. T. Hadimani
Ravindra Nath vs. Raghbir Singh and another
S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A. P.
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India
Santosh Yadav vs. Narender Singh
Sudha Devi vs. M. P. Narayanan and ors.
Sumant N. Balkrishna vs. George Fernandez
Surender Nath Khosla and anr. vs. S. Dalip Singhand ors.
Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh
Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh
Tukaram S. Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate
Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd, Madras vs. Commercial Income Tax, Madras
Election petitions require strict adherence to statutory provisions; allegations of corrupt practices must be supported by clear evidence to establish grounds for invalidating an election.
An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Represen....
The failure to maintain a proper account of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under the Act of 1951.
Election petitions alleging affidavit suppression must plead full corrupt practice particulars including pendency and material election result effect for improper acceptance; deficiency invites Order....
An election petition must contain concise material facts and particulars as per the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; failure to do so results in dismissal.
An election petition may be dismissed summons under CPC if it fails to disclose a triable cause of action; non-disclosure of material liabilities can render an election void under the Representation ....
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.