##PAGE1##

2026:JHHC:2731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

E.P. No. 01 of 2025

With

I.A. No. 12722 of 2025

------

Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato, son of Late Bistu Mahato, resident

Village Tola Konartand, Bhikharajpur Post and P.S.-Baliapur, District-

Dhanbad .... .... .... Petitioner

Versus

Chandradeo Mahato, son of Sri Anand Mahato, resident of Village-Baradaha,

Post-Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, District-Dhanbad

.... .... .... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate

Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Advocate

Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocate

Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate

------

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. ON: 19.01.2026. PRONOUNCED ON: 03.02.2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

respondent on the interlocutory application for rejection of the election

petition.

2. Instant interlocutory application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86(1) of Representation of

People Act, 1951 for rejection of plaint in this election petition.

3. The present election petition is filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with

Section 100 (1) (a) (b) (d) (i) (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951

(herein after referred to as Act, 1951) challenging the validity of the election of

the respondent- Chandradeo Mahato, returned candidate from 38, Sindri

Assembly Constituency to the Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly in the

election held in October/November, 2024. Respondent was elected with a total

1,05,136 votes, whereas total number of votes cast in favour of the runner was

1,01,688, who was the official candidate of BJP. Election Petitioner was the

official candidate of All India Forward Bloc in whose favour 737 votes were

cast in the election.

1

2026:JHHC:2731

4. Challenge to the validity of the election, is mainly on the following

grounds : -

a. Deposit of security money of Rs.10,000/- was not made in accordance

with the Section 34(2) of Act, 1951 as it was not made with the Returning

Officer concerned, nor in the Government treasury, but with the Nazir,

who cannot be said to be functionary notified under the Act, 1951.

b. Respondent submitted his nomination papers in four sets along with the

required affidavit. In the affidavit sworn in the office of Shri Ram Prasad

Mahato, Notary Public, Dhanbad, the required prescribed stamps were

not affixed on the affidavit. The Advocate Welfare Fund Ticket of ₹30 as

well as Advocate Clerk Stamp of ₹5 were not affixed. Out of the four sets

of affidavits filed along with the nomination papers, only two were in

original, whereas other two were xerox copy of the original affidavit.

c. Voters had been misled during the election campaign as the respondent

had claimed himself to be the candidate of भारतीय क्ቝुनि्቗ पा्቏ी (माले)

(CPI ML), whereas he had filed the nomination paper as official

candidate of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation).

Objection is to the omission of word ‘liberation’ in the election

pamphlets.

d. It is also averred in the election petition that declaration with regard to

conviction in pending criminal cases was not as per the Act, 1951. As per

the instruction and guidelines, all the candidates have to declare about

their conviction and pending criminal cases in the nomination paper and

also the details thereof was to be published in two leading newspapers.

This was not complied with, and the publication with regard to it, made

in the daily newspaper, Hindustan (Hindi) was misleading.

5. The grounds of rejection of plaint taken on behalf of the respondent can

be summed up as under:

a. Averments made in the election petition, do not disclose a cause

of action for declaring the election to be invalid.

b. There is failure on the part of the election petitioner to comply

with mandatory requirement of Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Act, 1951. It

is contended that there is non-compliance to S