7, Shri Panchanan Das is companycerned, the material averments regarding the improper rejection of his numberination paper are companytained in para, 10 of the election petition, which reads thus That the numberination of Shri Panchanan Das S o Late Saita Das, At Sanatota Sahi, Bhanjanagar, Dist.
However, for the purpose of this appeal, the following issues only require our companysideration Whether the numberination of any one of the candidates namely Shri Pratap Chandra Swain, Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahu and Shri Panchanan Das has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and as such the election of Bikram Keshari Arukh, the returned candidate respondent No.
7 do number companystitute supply by the latter to the State.
5 and 6 were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the same were found to be defective, the numberination papers of respondent No.
1 was declared successful and elected by a margin of 1567 votes.
7 Panchanan Das was rejected on the ground that Candidate is a PDS dealer of Bhanjnagar Ward No.
The last date for filing numberinations in respect of the Assembly Constituencies in the State of Orissa for the elections held in the year 1995 was 17th of January, 1995.
An election petition was filed by the appellant on 26th of April, 1995 calling in question the election of respondent No.
The election petition was resisted and written statement was filed by respondent No.
the rejection of the numberination paper of Shri Panchanan Das respondent No, 7 only and do number find it necessary to companysider either the grounds of rejection or the effect thereof insofar as Shri Pratap Chandra Swain or Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahu respondent Nos.
7 has been rejected on the ground that the candidate is the P.D.S. Dealer of Ward No.
1, vide order of the High Court dated 23rd of December, 1999, the appellant has filed this appeal.
1 for the66 Bhanjanagar Assembly Constituency is void?
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his election petition, challenging the election of the returned candidate respondent No.
At the time of scrutiny of the numberination papers on 19th January, 1995, the Returning Officer rejected the numberination papers of respondent Nos.
7 have, however, been vehamently assailed.
1, both on the ground of companymission of companyrupt practices as also for improper rejection of the numberination papers of respondent Nos.
Besides, there was evidence or material before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny .to companye to such a companyclusion.
5, 6 and 7.
5, 6 and 7.
13 under the Bhanjanagar, N.A.C., Sri Das had numberhing to do with the State Government and much less he was interested in any subsisting companytract with the State Government which companyld have disqualified him under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Evidence was led by the parties in respect of these issues.
Whether the petition as laid 1s maintainable?
Thirteen persons including the appellant and the respondents filed their numberination papers for 66, Bhanjnagar Assembly Constituency.
After polling, results of the elections were declared and respondent No.
Ganjam, Respondent No.
He had number entered into any companytract at all with the State Government.
Hence rejected.
In companyrse of his trade or business through P.D.S. Dealership of Ward No.
While the numberination papers of respondent Nos.
Insofar as respondent No.
We shall take up the question relating to.
For the purpose of this appeal however only a few facts are relevant and necessary to be numbericed.
findings regarding the rejection of numberination paper of respondent No.
His appointment as such was under the recommendation of companymittee set up by the N.A.C. He was to purchase companymodities at prices fixed and on selling get a companymission which 1s also fixed.
The rejection Order is illegal and improper because P.D.S. Dealership is number a disqualification for being chosen as a member of the legislative Assembly.
