The re scheduled programme was as follows Last date for withdrawal of candidate 24 1 1997 candidature Date of polling 7 2 1997 Counting of the ballots 9 2 1997 The appellant companytested the election as a candidate of the Indian National Congress Congress I .
To meet the objection raised by the Returning Officer, respondent, Shri Sunil Kumar, at the time of scrutiny itself, submitted the following written application to the Returning Officer Ludhiana 21.1.1997 The Returning Officer, 57, Ludhiana North, Ludhiana.
He, therefore, rejected the numberination papers of respondent, Sunil Kumar as well as Vir Abhimanyu and Harish Kumar, in spite of the fact that respondent Shri Sunil Kumar had made an application, at the time of the scrutiny, stating that he was the official BJP candidate and requesting that his numberination paper be accepted and the symbol reserved for BJP be allotted to him.
Respondent, Sunil Kumar filed his numberination paper for companytesting the election as a candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party hereinafter BJP .
Whether the order of rejection of numberination paper filed by Shri Vir Abhimanyu was illegal and improper, if so, its effect?
After the declaration of the result of the election, the respondent filed an Election Petition No.
After the polling, the companynting of ballots took place on 9th of February, 1997 and the appellant was declared elected having secured 33614 votes.
OPP 2.
On 21st of January, 1997 when the numberination papers came up for scrutiny before the Returning Officer, a suo motu objection was raised by the Returning Officer to the effect that BJP had set up more than one candidate in the election and, therefore, numbere companyld be treated as a candidate set up by a recognised political party BJP.
By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed Election Petition No.3 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein and set aside the election of the appellant herein, the returned candidate, from 57, North Ludhiana Assembly Constituency of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha.
Whether the order of rejection of numberination papers filed by the petitioner Sunil Kumar was illegal and improper, if so, its effect?
Shri Vir Abhimanyu also filed his numberination paper as a BJP candidate on 20th January, 1997 at 12.50 p.m. supported by Forms A and B also duly signed by Shri L.K. Advani and Shri Balramji Dass Tandon, who had been authorised by BJP to intimate the names of the candidates set up by BJP to the Returning Officer.
Sub Scrutiny of Nomination paper.
It was maintained that since numberintimation had been given to the Returning Officer till 3.00 p.m. on the date of the scrutiny about the official candidate by BJP, the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting their numberination papers.
It was alleged by the respondent that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected his application, filed under Section 36 5 of the Act, seeking an opportunity to meet the objection raised by the Returning Officer.
3 of 1997 challenging the election of the returned candidate on the ground that his numberination paper as well as those of S Shri Vir Abhimanyu and Harish Kumar had been wrongly and illegally rejected.
According to the case set up by respondent in his Election Petition he had submitted his numberination paper on 20th January, 1997 at 12.10 p.m. as a candidate set up by BJP and along with the numberination paper he had also submitted Forms A and B as envisaged by paras 13 c and 13 d of the Election Symbols Reservation and Allotment Order, 1968 hereinafter Election Symbols Order .
Now I have companye to know that other others candidate candidates has have also applied numberination paper papers as B.J.P. candidate.
They addressed their arguments on the issues on the basis of the summoned record.
It was also found that the rejection of numberination papers of S Shri Vir Abhimanyu and Harish Kumar were also illegal and improper.
Aggrieved by the rejection of his numberination paper, the respondent filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Returning Officer dated 21st of January, 1997.
The Election Commission of India numberified the holding of elections to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha.
Forms A and B had been signed by Shri L.K. Advani, President of the BJP and Shri Balramji Dass Tandon, President of Punjab State BJP, who had been authorised by BJP to intimate the names of the candidates set up by the party to the returning officer.
On the last date of withdrawal of the candidature, the appellant and 9 other candidates remained in the fray.
Relief.
We have heard Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.P. Jain learned companynsel appearing for the respondent and examined the record.
Vir Abhimanyu also filed his numberination paper as a candidate set up by BJP while Harish Kumar filed his numberination paper as a substitute candidate of BJP.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were raised 1.
The election programme for 57, North Ludhiana Assembly Constituency was fixed as under Last date of filing of numberination 20 1 1997 Scrutiny of numberinations 21 1 1997 Last date for withdrawal of candidate 23 1 1997 candidature Date of polling 6 2 1997 Counting of the ballots 8 2 1997 The Election Commission of India, however, re scheduled the programme, as 23rd January, 1997 was declared as a National Holiday.
OPP 3.
Whether the order of rejection of numberination paper filed by Shri Harish Kumar was illegal and improper, if so, its effect?
Please give me 24 twenty four hours time for getting official companyfirmation for record.
Shri Harish Kumar had similarly filed his numberination paper on the same day as a substitute candidate of the BJP.
Sir, I am an Bhartiya Janta Party candidate from 57, Ludhiana North.
At the request of the parties, the record including the numberination papers and the material relating to the rejection of the numberination papers was summoned from the District Election Commissioner and on receipt of the same, learned companynsel for the parties stated before the learned Single Judge that numberother evidence was required to be led.
Placing reliance on Section 36 5 of the Act, the learned Single Judge decided issues 1 to 3 in favour of the election petitioner respondent herein and held that the Returning Officer fell into a grave error by declining to give time to the election petitioner to meet the objection raised by him suo motu and as such the order of rejection of numberination paper filed by the election petitioner Shri Sunil Kumar was illegal and improper.
As a result of the findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, issue No.4 was decided in favour of the election petitioner and the Election Petition was allowed and election of the appellant was set aside.
He requested for 24 hours time to produce an official companyfirmation of his candidature.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the returned candidate has filed this statutory appeal.
OPP 4.
The Returning Officer, however, had suo motu, raised an objection regarding the validity of the numberination paper of the respondent on the ground that BJP had set up more than one candidate from the same companystituency.
The Election Petition was companytested and the appellant resisted the same asserting that the numberination papers of the respondent as well as of S Shri Vir Abhimanyu and Harish Kumar had been rightly rejected for number compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 33 1 of the Act as amended by Act No.21 of 1996.
The order rejecting the numberination paper of Shri Sunil Kumar reads as follows ORDER REGARDING SCRUTINY The Nomination of Sunil Kumar was received on 20.1.1997 at 12.10 p.m. His name was proposed by one proposal and was registered at serial No.8.
DR.A.S. ANAND, CJI This appeal, under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter the Act , is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated November 5, 1997.
