Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27285
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
string, string
Jitendra Kumar Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Yadav – Respondent
Election Petition No.21/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]
Election petitions require strict adherence to nomination form requirements; failure to submit a complete form within the prescribed time precludes claims of improper rejection under the Representation of the People Act.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 80, 100(1)(c), 33(1) and 36(4) - Election petition filed claiming arbitrary rejection of nomination form - Validity of rejection and non-compliance with nomination requirements examined - Court determined that election petitioner did not submit a complete nomination form within the prescribed time - Appeals dismissed for lack of substantial compliance and failure to demonstrate any corrupt practice. (Paras 4, 62)
(B) Proper procedure in accepting nominations and responsibility of the Returning Officer - It was held that the absence of completed nomination forms does not allow for claims of improper rejection, as non-submission precludes any valid claim. (Paras 51, 57)
Facts of the case:
Election petitioner Jitendra Kumar Awasthi alleged he was wrongfully prevented from submitting his nomination form for State Assembly elections, claiming it rendered the election void. He had purchased the nomination form but was removed from the election room before submission.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the election petitioner did not possess a valid and complete nomination form at the time he was asked to leave and there were insufficient grounds for declaring the election void.
Issues: The principal issues revolved around the legality of the removal from the election room and whether the rejection of the election petition should be based on improper rejection of the nomination form or corrupt practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the election process was conducted fairly, affirming the necessity of complete compliance with nomination requirements for acceptance, and finding no violation of election laws as alleged by the petitioner.
Result: Election Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invalid nomination form affects election results. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of improper removal and nomination rejection. (Para 3 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments on the requirements for valid nominations. (Para 12 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. issues framed by the high court regarding the petition. (Para 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. evidence regarding the conduct of election officials. (Para 18 , 22 , 31) |
| 6. legal standards for accepting nominations. (Para 46 , 49 , 50) |
| 7. no corrupt practices alleged, ruling on maintainability. (Para 54 , 59 , 61) |
| 8. conclusion: election petition dismissed. (Para 62 , 63 , 64) |
1. This Election Petition is filed by Jitendra Kumar Awasthi being aggrieved of the action of authority in not permitting him to fill his nomination form for the State Assembly Election for the Constituent Assembly No.96, Bargi Vidhan Sabha for which the voting took place on 28.11.2018 and the results were declared on 11.12.2018 claiming that not permitting the Election Petitioner to contest the election in an arbitrary and illegal manner has rendered the election as void and, therefore, the election to the said Constituent Assembly No.96 Bargi Vidhan Sabha be declared as void.
2. Election Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Awasthi submits that he had purchased nomination form after depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- prior to the last date of filling up of the nomination form on 9.11.2018. Election Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Awasthi along with his Proposer Pyare Lal Jadiya were available in the election room at about 2:55 PM i.e. prior to the notified timing of 3:00 pm. At the time of his entering in the election room where the nomination forms were to be filled, Assistant Returning Officer Smt.Preeti Nagendra after seeking all the papers of the Election Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Awasthi had given him a Token Slip No.4, which was an indication that the election petitioner is entitled to fill nomination form and had entered in the election room prior to the designated time.
3. At about 3:04 pm, Returning Officer Rohit Singh on a dispute having arisen in regard to photograph of another prospective candidate Smt.Keertan Vyas with her counsel or representative had thrown that person out of the room and had threatened his subordinate officers. The election petitioner was carrying a mobile phone in his hand. Returning Officer Rohit Singh thought that he was recording the proceedings, therefore, on such doubt, his mobile phone was taken and upon checking, it was returned back to the election petitioner and when the election petitioner had made a request that he be not insulted, he was threatened and according to the election petitioner, the Returning Officer Rohit Singh had said that he can even use force but without any provocation, the Returning Officer had thrown the election petitioner out of the election room without accepting his nomination form and that became the bone of contention for which the election petitioner had immediately informed the election supervisor and thereafter had given a complaint to the District Election Officer i.e. District Collector.
4. The election petitioner has filed an election petition in terms of the provisions as contained in S.80 on the grounds enumerated in S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 . It is alleged that there is violation of the provisions as contained in S.100(1)(c) of the , which is the foundation of this election petition, namely, any nomination has been improperly rejected.
5. Returning Officer Rohit Singh admits that 9.11.2018 was the last day of filling up of the nomination form and it was his responsibility to accept the nomination forms of all the persons, who were granted entry in the election room upto 3:00 PM. Returning Officer Rohit Singh admits that nobody present in the election room could be forcefully thrown out provided that the person available has a valid nomination form or the person available is a Proposer of such candidate.
6. In reply to Question No.2 before the High C
