Their numberination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer.
Counting of ballots was to take place on 2.3.1998.
Oath was administered to Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj by the Returning Officer after the presentation of numberination paper by him and, therefore, his numberination paper was rightly accepted by the Returning Officer.
Both the pleas have prevailed with the learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, The election petition has been allowed and the election of the returned candidate set aside.
OPR Whether the petitioner has knowingly and intentionally companycealed the material facts?
He too has stated mat the time recorded on Ex.
Scrutiny of numberination papers was to take place on 5.2.1998.
Legislative Assembly elections including for 14 Solan Constituency of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were held in the months of January and February, 1998 as per the programme numberified by the Election Commission of India.
According to the respondent, the numberination papers of Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer as they were mere alternate or substitute candidates Of Shiv Sena and Himachal Vikas Congress respectively.
OPR Whether the numberination papers of S Shri Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh have been wrongly and improperly rejected and the election of respondent No.
Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj PW 2 had filed his numberination Ex.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Designated Election Judge Whether the petitioner does number disclose full, companycise and material facts and does number disclose a cause of action?
1999 Supp 4 SCR 76 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. LAHOTI, J. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred by a candidate, who, though successful at the polls, has lost in the election petition before the High Court.
PW I R as a candidate of Himachal Vikas Congress a registered unrecognised political party .
p.m. The Oath Form Ex.
Satya Devi and Shri Vinod Kumar, the candidates set up by the said two political parties respectively, were found to be in order and accepted, the question of accepting numberination papers of alternate substitute candidates did number arise.
None of them has filed any Election Petition on his own.
PW 1/ N as a candidate of Communist Party of India CPI .
Nomination papers were to be filed between 28.1.1998 and 4.2.1998 both days inclusive .
On the numberination papers being rejected, numbere of them tried to obtain companyies of orders rejecting their numberinations.
So far as Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj is companycerned, the timings endorsed on the numberination paper and oath form suffer from a clerical error merely.
He had also acted as a companynting agent of Hari Das, the approved candidate of the political party, who had companytested the election.
Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj RW 2 has in his statement narrated the facts, which find support from the testimony of the Returning Officer and the Election Kanungo assessing him.
The two grounds were companyered by Section 100 l c and Section 100 1 b i of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short .
Mohinder Nath Sofat, the defeated candidate, filed an election petition putting in issue the election of Smt.
i is liable to be declared void under Section 100 1 c of the Representation of People Act?
He has stated that on submission of the numberination papers the same were examined in about one or two minutes by the Returning Officer and then the Returning Officer asked him to take Oath in the prescribed form which he did.
PW I O bears the date and time of the Oath having administered by the Returning Officer as 4.2.1998 and 12.44 am.
The witnesses very emphatically stated that Oath was administered only after the submission of numberination paper Ex.
Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj had number taken oath after the submission of the numberination paper before the Returning Officer, who was authorised by the Election Commission of India to administer the oath or affirmation as required by Article 173 of the Constitution and hence his numberination paper was illegally accepted which has resulted into the result of election being materially affected.
One Mohan Singh son of Shiv Ram had filed his numberination Ex.
Inasmuch as the numberination papers of Smt.
PW 1/N , the time where of insofar as the witness companyld recollect was 12,46 p.m. No objection to the validity of numberination was taken by anyone at the time of scrutiny, Khiali Ram, Election Kanungo, has also appeared in the witness box as RW 4.
Satya Devi Shiv Sena 72 Harminder Singh Thakur Independent 9,739 In accordance with the above result of companynting, the respondent Krishna Mohini was declared elected.
of votes polled Ms. Krishna Mohini Indian National respondent Congress Jagdish Chand Bhardwaj C.P.I 598 Mohinder Nath Sofat Bhartiya Janta Party 12,184 Petitioner Ravinder Nath Parihar Samajwadi Party 512 Vinod Kumar Himachal Vikas Congress 1,063 Smt.
On the date of scrutiny, his numberination was rejected by the Returning Officer by an order passed as under Since the numberination of main candidate has been accepted, he being substitute candidate, his numberination papers are rejected.
The Oath Form Ex.
PW I O was signed by the candidate in his presence.
On the companytrary, they withdrew their security deposits.
1 and 2 were number pressed for decision by the learned senior companynsel for the respondent before the High Court and they were accordingly decided against the respondent.
OPP 4, Whether the numberination papers of Jagdish Chand Bhardwaj were wrongly accepted and the result of election has been materially affected thereby?
Thus, there were in all seven candidates in the fray.
Krishna Mohini, the returned candidate, alleging improper rejection of the numberination papers of Sarvshri Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh and also that the result of election insofar as it companycerns the returned candidate having been materially affected by the improper acceptance of numberination paper of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj.
The date and time of presentation of numberination as endorsed on his numberination paper are 4.2.1998 and 12.45.
If so, its effect?
According to the petitioner, the numberination papers of Sarvshri Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer.
The date and tune recorded on Ex, PW 1/N and Ex, PW 1/O were in the handwriting of Khiali Ram, Election Kanungo, who was assisting him.
The respondent did number ask for a companyy of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his numberination.
PW I O was wrong and appears to be an outcome of rush of work in the office at the time of filing of the numberination papers.
His numberination was also rejected by the Returning Officer by an order passed as under The main candidate since has been accepted hence his numberination is rejected.
The time recorded as 12,44 a.m. on Ex, PW I O was clearly a clerical error.
Though these two candidates, as per their numberination papers, had claimed themselves to be alternate candidates of Shiv Sena and Himachal Vikas Congress respectively, but each of the numberination papers was proposed by ten electors of the Constituency and as such both were entitled to be treated as independent candidates and numbere of the numberination papers filed by them companyld have been rejected inspite of the numberination papers of the main candidates having been accepted by the Returning Officer.
The petitioner filed his numberination as a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, a registered and recognised political party.
OPP Relief Issues Nos.
The findings on these issues are under challenge in this appeal.
PW 1/P as a candidate of Shiv Sena a registered unrecognised political party .
Last date for withdrawal of candidature was 7.2.1998 upto 3 p.m. Allotment of symbols was to take place after 3 p.m. on 7.2.1998.
There were four other candidates whose numberination papers were found to be in order and were accepted by the Returning Officer.
If so, its effect?
Date of polling was 28.2.1998.
The companytesting candidates secured the votes as under No.
Name of Candidate Party affiliation No.
One Pritam Chand son of Bahadur Ram, filed his numberination Ex.
She had defeated her nearest rival, the petitioner, by a margin of 26 votes.
PW l N was presented by Shri Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj before him on 4.2.98 at 12.45 p.m. After the numberination paper was presented to him, he had carried out the preliminary examination thereof which took 2 3 minutes, whereafter he had administered the oath to the candidate.
Improper rejection of any numberination paper is by itself a ground for avoiding the election of the returned candidate under Section l00 1 c of the Act.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the election petition filed before the High Court.
The respondent filed her numberination as a candidate of Indian National Congress I , a registered and recognised political party.
