IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of non-discloser of material information u/s 100(1)(d) will have the same effect as rejecting nomination paper by returning officer u/s 36(2).

Headnote:(a) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) – Non-discloser of information in the affidavit – Electricity dues in respect of first meter – Bona fide dispute about outstanding dues – Appellant believing bona fide that because of dispute the dues need not be mentioned – Second meter in tenanted premises – Bona fide belief that dues payable by tenants – At the time of filing nomination papers this dues had not become appellant’s liability – Again regarding municipal dues there was genuine dispute – Not material lapse. (Para 34)
       (2002) 5 SCC 294; (2003) 4 SCC 399; (2013) 11 Scale 348; (2003) 2 SCC 176; – Relied upon
       (2013) 4 SCC 776 – Distinguished
       (b) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) – Non-discloser of information in the affidavit – Bungalow No. 866 and vehicle in the name of the appellant's wife – Similarly appellant’s interest/share in partnership firm – Not disclosed – Serious and major lapse – Not satisfactorily explained – Thus material facts about assets not disclosed – Amounting to suppression/non-disclosure – Violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (Para 35, 36)
       (2002) 5 SCC 294; (2003) 4 SCC 399; (2013) 11 Scale 348; (2003) 2 SCC 176; – Relied upon
       (2013) 4 SCC 776 – Distinguished
       (c) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 36(2) – Challenge to correctness of information provided in affidavit – Allegation of non-discloser of material information – Not possible for Returning Officer to conduct detailed examination and summary enquiry may not suffice – At that stage not possible for Returning Officer to reject nomination for such defects – Such defects can be examined only in an election petition – Returning officer can reject a nomination paper only on grounds in section 36(2) as well as for leaving the blanks unfilled – If the case of non-disclosure, false affidavit or suppression of information is proved in an election petition u/s 100(1)(d), it can be held that nomination was improperly accepted – Result will be same as rejecting the nomination paper u/s 36(2). (Para 38)
       Facts of the case;
       Election of appellant was challenged by the respondent, a voter, on the ground that appellant’s nomination was improperly accepted. High Court allowed the petition and set aside the election of the appellant.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appellant did not disclose material information on assets.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J. –

1. The appellant herein was the successful candidate in the election of legislative assembly, which he contested from 56, Ambernath Constituency, Thane District, Maharashtra. There were five candidates in the fray for which the elections were held on October 13, 2004 and the results were declared on October 16, 2004. After he was declared elected, his election was challenged by the first respondent, who is a voter in the said constituency. He filed the election petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay stating that the appellant's nomination had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the election was void due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Rules and Orders framed under the said Act.

2. The election petition was filed under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act on the ground that in the nomination form filled in by the appellant he had suppressed his dues payable to the Government, suppressed the assets of his spouse and also suppressed the information and assets of a partnership firm of which he is a partner. The appellant contested the said petition. Evidence was led. After hearing the arguments, the High Court passed judgment dated August 16, 2007 accepting the plea of the first respondent that the nomination form of the appellant was defective and should not have been accepted by the Returning Officer. Thus, while allowing the election petition and setting aside of the election of the appellant, the High Court recorded the non-disclosure on following counts:

a) Non-disclosure of dues to Maharashtra State Electricity Board in respect of two service connections held by him amounting to Rs.79,200/- and Rs.66,250/-.

b) The appellant failed to disclose the ownership of Bungalow No. 866 and the taxes dues thereof amounting to Rs.3,445/- owned by his wife.

c) The appellant failed to disclose the particulars of the vehicle MH-05-AC-55 owned by the wife.

d) The appellant is guilty of non-disclosure of property owned by firm Padmavati Developers of which the appellant is a partner, which owns two plots of lands measuring 1313 sq.mtrs. and 1292 sq.mts. in Survey No. 48, Hissa No. 9 of Mouze Kalyan, Taluka Ambarnath, District Thane, Maharashtra. Challenging the impugned judgment, the present statutory appeal is filed, as provided under Section 116A of the Act.

3. We may state, at the outset, that there is no dispute on facts, namely, the appellant had not disclosed certain informations, as found by the High Court and noted above, in his nomination form. Entire dispute rests on the issue as to whether it was incumbent upon the appellant to have disclosed such an information and non- disclosure thereof rendered his nomination invalid and void. The nature of information given by the appellant in his nomination form, on the basis of which the appellant contends that it ought to have been treated as substantial compliance, would be taken note of later at the appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to state the legal position contained in the Act, Rules and Orders as well as the judgments of this Court in order to understand as to whether there was a substantial compliance by the appellant in the form of information given by him or it amounted to non-disclosure of the material information warranting rejection of his nomination.

4. Since the petition filed before the High Court was under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv), we first take note of these provisions, which are to the following effect: "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. -

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion - xx xx xx

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected -

(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or xx xx xx

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 424

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASurinder Singh Nijjar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.Kisan Shankar Kathore – AppellantVs.Arun Dattatray Sawant & Ors. – Respondents[Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2007]Decided On : 09-05-2014

IMPORTANT POINTFinding of non-discloser of material information u/s 100(1)(d) will have the same effect as rejecting nomination paper by returning officer u/s 36(2).

Cases Referred (4)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Kisan Shankar Kathore – Appellant
Vs.
Arun Dattatray Sawant & Ors. – Respondents
[Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2007]
Decided On : 09-05-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of non-discloser of material information u/s 100(1)(d) will have the same effect as rejecting nomination paper by returning officer u/s 36(2).