Page 1 of 40

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 17^th January, 2020

+

EL.PET.2/2015

NAND KISHORE GARG

.... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Abhishek

Paruthi, Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Mr.

Sachin Kumar, Mr. Aakash Dubey &

Ms. Manisha A. Narain, Advs.

Versus

JITENDER SINGH TOMAR & ORS. .... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Kshitiz

Ahuja, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Satyakam, ASC, GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. The petition challenges the election of the respondent no.1 to the

Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi from AC-16 Tri Nagar Constituency,

in the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi, held

in the year 2015.

2. The petition came up first before this Court on 23^rd March, 2015 and

thereafter on 25^th March, 2015, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued

and vide ex parte ad interim order, the respondent no.15 i.e. SDM, Kotwali,

being the Returning Officer of the subject election, was directed to preserve

the

entire

election

records

including nomination

form,

affidavit

accompanying the nomination form, objections, pre-publication approvals of

election materials and to file the same before this Court.

2020:DHC:309

Page 2 of 40

3. The respondent no.1 filed IA No.17167/2015 under Section 151 CPC,

which vide order dated 23^rd September, 2015 was ordered to be treated as

under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Vide order dated 11^th December, 2015,

pleadings in the Election Petition were ordered to be completed

notwithstanding the pendency of the application under Order VII Rule 11

CPC.

4. None appeared for the respondents no. 2 to 4 and 8 to 14 despite

service; they were vide order dated 11^th December, 2015 ordered to be

proceeded against ex parte. None appeared for the respondent no.5 also

despite service by publication.

5. The petition challenges the election of respondent no.1, pleading (i)

that the petitioner is an elector/voter in the subject assembly constituency

and also contested the subject election as a candidate of Bhartiya Janata

Party; (ii) the respondents no. 1 to 12 were other contesting candidates from

the said constituency and the respondents no. 13 and 14 had also filed their

nominations for the subject election but their nominations were rejected by

the respondent no.15 Returning Officer; (iii) that the respondent no.1,

contesting the election as a candidate of Aam Adami Party, (AAP), was

declared elected with 63,012 votes as against the petitioner, at second place,

with 40,701 votes; (iv) that the result of the election, insofar the respondent

no.1, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of nomination,

containing false information regarding educational qualification of

respondent no.1; (v) that the respondent no.1, at the time of filing nomination

and thereafter, has continued to misrepresent himself to be a law graduate

and an Advocate and has thus been successful in exercising undue influence

2020:DHC:309

Page 3 of 40

over the electors/voters, which amounts to a ‗corrupt practice‘ within the

meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (vi) that though the

nomination form requires the candidate to give full details of all educational

qualifications, the respondent no.1 gave details of only his LL.B.

qualification and not about the preceding qualifications/eligibilities; (vii) that

the highest educational qualification, of law graduate, declared by the

respondent no.1 is false and bogus; (viii) that the respondent no.1, is not

even a graduate and the question of the respondent no.1 getting admission in

law college for a three years law program did not arise; (ix) consequently,

the respondent no.1‘s enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi and his claim

of being an Advocate, are also false, incorrect and bogus; (x) that for

admissi