SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
PANKAJ CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
KAILASH CHOUDHARY – Respondent
EP 6/2019



Advocates:
['MAHMOOD PRACHA', '', 'RAJAK K HAIDAR', 'MOHAMMED MUNEER DHERA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Election Petition No. 6/2019

Pankaj Choudhary S/o Shri S.S. Choudhary, Aged About 44

Years, R/o II/3 Gandhi Nagar, Bajaj Nagar Marg, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Kailash Choudhary S/o Shri Taga Ram Choudhary, R/o

Ward No. 32, Jat Colony, Samdari Road, Balotra, Tehsil

Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2.

Election Commission Of India, Through Chief Election

Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New

Delhi.

3.

Chief Election Officer, State Election Commission,

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4.

Returning Officer, 17, Barmer Parliamentary Constituency,

Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Mohamood Pracha.

Mr. Rajak Khan Haidar.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. M.M. Dhera.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Reportable

Judgment

27/04/2021

This election petition under Sections 80, 80A, 81 and 100(1)

(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’) has

been filed by the petitioner calling in question the election of

respondent No.1 from the Barmer Parliamentary Constituency of

Rajasthan.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that the Election

Commission of India (‘ECI’) notified the following schedule for

(2 of 16)

[EP-6/2019]

holding election to various Parliamentary Constituencies including

Barmer Parliamentary Constituency as under:-

“

Sr.No.

Particulars

Date

1.

Date of issuing the gazette

notification

02.04.2019

2.

Last date for filing nomination

09.04.2019

3.

Date for scrutiny of nomination

10.04.2019

4.

Last date for withdrawal of

nomination

12.04.2019

5.

Date of polling

29.04.2019

6.

Date of counting/declaration of

results.

23.05.2019

”

It is indicated that the petitioner is an erstwhile IPS Officer

appointed by the Govt. of India in Rajasthan Cadre. He was

dismissed from service vide order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for violating the Conduct

Rules, 1968. It is claimed that as the petitioner was a proposed

candidate for the Barmer Parliamentary Constituency for

Parliamentary Elections to be held between April-May, 2019, he

contacted the Secretary, ECI through Fax, E-mail, WhatsApp and

personally handed over a letter to the ECI on 01.04.2019

requesting issuance of certificate under Sections 9(2) and 33(3)

of the Act, which was necessary for the petitioner to contest the

elections.

The notification for Parliamentary Elections was issued on

02.04.2019 and as per the schedule, last date for filing nomination

for Barmer Parliamentary Constituency was 09.04.2019, the

scrutiny was held on 10.04.2019 and the last date of withdrawal

of nomination was 12.04.2019. The petitioner filed his nomination

papers for Barmer Parliamentary Constituency on 08.04.2019.

(3 of 16)

[EP-6/2019]

It is indicated in the petition that the nomination papers

were not accompanied by certificate envisaged under Section

33(3) of the Act.

It is alleged that the ECI, despite the letter dated

01.04.2019, did not issue certificate to the petitioner, however the

Under Secretary of ECI issued a letter dated 04.04.2019 to the

Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur regarding miscellaneous

complaints and required it to take appropriate action, in

consonance, the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur

addressed a letter dated 06.04.2019 to the Secretary, ECI

indicating that the certificate was required to be issued by the ECI,

New Delhi.

It is then indicated in the petition that scrutiny of the

nomination papers was held on 10.04.2019, the petitioner made a

request to ECI on 10.04.2019 at around 1.03 PM seeking issuance

of requisite certificate under Section 33(3) of the Act, however,

the same was not responded to. As a result, the nomination form

of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer as per

Section 36(2)(b) of the Act in absence of requisite certificate.

It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top