Page 1 of 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 07.07.2022

+

EL. PET. 1/2021 and IA Nos. 535/2021, 536/2021,

2819/2021,6189/2021 & 15271/2021

ROHITASH

..... Petitioner

versus

THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF

DELHI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

: Petitioner in person.

For the Respondents

: Ms Shalini Nair, Ms Anjana Gosain & Ms

Ritika Khanagwal, Advs. for R-1 and 3.

Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC & Ms Asmita

Singh, Advs. for R-2.

Ms Ayesha Jamal Advocate for R-4.

Mr Anupam Srivastava and Ms Sarita

Pandey, Advocates for R-5.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1.

The petitioner has filed the above-captioned election petition

under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 impugning the

election of respondent no.5 as a Member of the Legislative Assembly

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002482

Page 2 of 9

of the National Capital Territory of Delhi from the Assembly

Constituency – 48, South (SC), NCT of Delhi. The petitioner further

prays that the 2020 elections to the Assembly of NCT of Delhi from

Assembly Constituency – 48, South (SC), NCT of Delhi be declared

as null and void and directions be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 3 for

conducting fresh elections to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of

Delhi from the constituency in question.

2.

Respondent no.5 had successfully contested the Assembly

Elections of Delhi (Vidhan Sabha) 2020 from the Assembly

Constituency – 48, Ambedkar Nagar (SC), NCT of Delhi held on

08.02.2020, as a candidate belonging to the Aam Adami Party. He was

declared as the elected candidate from the said constituency on

11.02.2020.

3.

The petitioner claims that the assembly election in respect of the

said constituency is required to be declared as void under Section

100(d)(i) and 100(d)(iv) read with Section 125A of the Representation

of the People Act, 1951

4.

The present petition is premised on the assertion that respondent

no.5 had intentionally given false information in the affidavit filed in

Form no. 26, inasmuch as he had affirmed that there were no

Government dues payable by him in respect of Government

accommodation.

5.

The petitioner claims that respondent no. 5 was allotted office

space at Community Centre, H-Block, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi by

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002482

Page 3 of 9

the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereafter ‘DUSIB’) and

as on 31.12.2016, an amount of ₹2,77,650/- was due and payable for

occupation of the said property to DUSIB (arrayed as respondent

no.4).

6.

Respondent no.5 has contested the aforesaid assertion but he

does not dispute that he had occupied the office space at Community

Centre, H-Block, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. He disputes that any

amount is payable by him for occupying the said office. He denies that

he has provided any false information in the affidavit filed by him.

7.

Respondent no.5 as well as respondent no.2 (The Secretary,

Delhi Legislative Assembly) have also contested the present petition

on the grounds that (a) it is not verified as required under Section

83(1)(c) the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and therefore, the

petition is liable to be rejected; (b) the petitioner is precluded from

challenging respondent no.5’s election and/or seeking that the election

in question be countermanded on the ground of improper acceptance

of nomination of respondent no.5 because the petitioner has not raised

any such objection with the Returning Officer; and (c) even if it is

accepted that an incorrect declaration was made by respondent no.5 in

his affidavit, the same is not of substantial character so as to constitute

any corrupt practice.

8.

In view of the rival assertions, the following issues fall for

consideration before this Court:

This is a di