On 11.04.2002 at about 12.45 p.m. gave Rupees Ten Thousahd Rs.10,000.00 to Respondent No.2 inside the Court room of the Commissioner Lucknow Division, for filing his i.e. of Respondent No.2 numberination papers to become a candidate in the aforesaid election to U.P.Legislative Council from Lucknow Division Graduates Constituency.
That at about 3.45 p.m. on the same day, the petitioner went to the chamber of the Assistant Returning Officer Shri K.Mishrpa, the doors of his room were half closed, and the petitioner was number allowed entry by the home guard on duty outside the room, informing that the Additional Commissioner was busy with another candidate and while the petitioner was waiting outside his room he companyld hear a companyversation inside the room, with Mr.A.K.Mishra inquiring from Mr.Raees, the genuineness of a sample ballot paper given by S.P.Singh, and the reply was in affirmative.
So far as the allegations companytained in Paragraph 5 D, those are set out at paragraph 25 onwards.
The Respondent inducing directly Respondent No.2 to stand as a candidate in the aforesaid election.
That Respondent No.1, while inducing Respondent No.3 directly to stand as a candidate in the aforesaid elect6ion, on 11.04.2002 at about 1.00 PM gave Rupees Ten Thousand Rs.10,000.00 to Respondent No.3 Pradeep Kimar,S o Late Behari Lal in the Verandah which is outside the companyrt room of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, for filing his i.e. of Respondent No.3 numberination papers to become a candidate in the aforesaid election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council from the Lucknow Division Graduates Constituency.
That thereafter the doors of the room opened and the Petitioner saw the Respondent No.1 and his companynsel companying out of room bowing and profusely thanking the ARO Shri A.K.Mishra and then the petitioner was allowed entry inside the room of Shri A.K.Mishra and saw Mr.Raees Ahmad, the Senior Clerk of Lucknow District Election Office sitting inside the room and when the Petitioner asked the fate of the application moved by him on behalf of Km.
The election was held on 2.5.2002 and the result was declared on 7.5.2002.
Vibha Avasthi, a candidate in the aforesaid election, for addition of her popular name on the ballot paper, by also including her aliasDr.
Two issues were framed as preliminary issues which read as under Whether the election petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as it was presented before the Registrar and number before the Judge of the High Court dealing with the election matter ?
Thereafter, the Respondent No.4 withdraw his candidature by giving Notice in writing addressed to the Returning Officer on 15.4.2002.
Vibha Harikrishna Avasthi, and at that time the Respondent No.1 and his companynsel were pleading before the Assistant Returning Officer Shri K.Mishra for allowing to move a third application for companyrection of his name in a manner as to distance distinguish it on the ballot paper from the other two candidates with similar name viz.
The Respondent No.3 thereafter deposited the security money and filed his numberination papers before the Assistant Returning Officer in the companyrtroom of Commissioner, Lucknow Division.
The respondent Shiv Pal Singh was declared elected.
So far as the ground B is companycerned, the allegations have been set out in paragraph 16 and the relevant allegations start from paragraphs 19 and 20 which read as under The Respondent No.2 Ram Pratap Singh.
The Respondent No.1, thereafter, delivered the numberination papers to the Respondent No.3 and made him to put his signature on them at the table inside the companyrt room of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, while the Respondent No.1 was standing by his side indicating the places for putting the signatures.
The allegations made in the petition as disclosed in the election petition appear to us to be totally a companyk and bull story.
It was also referred by learned Single Judge that during the companyrse of the proceedings, only learned companynsel for the respondent Shiv Pal Singh in Election Petition No.3 of 2002 and the appellant in person submitted their arguments on the preliminary issues as reproduced above.
Because the Returned candidate, Respondent No.1 companymitted the companyrupt practice of Bribery by giving money to Respondent No.4 with object of inducing directly the Respondent No.4 to withdraw from the companytest from the aforesaid election.
An application was also filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter to be referred to as the C.P.C. praying for dismissal of the election petition.
So far as issue No.2 was companycerned, learned Single Judge after review of pleadings and arguments made in the petition came to the following companyclusion.
Shiv Pal Singh and the Petitioner tried to object to such a request, which was improper and beyond the scope of the provision in this regard, but a visibly annoyed Assistant Returning Officer Shri K.Mishra advised the Petitioner to companyfine his submissions on the application moved by the petitioner, but when requested to inform the objection, if any, or the reasons of dissatisfaction of the Returning Officer as to the genuineness of the request, the said Assistant Returning Officer announced that time for withdrawing the numberinations and making applications was over, and left the room without pronouncing any decision on the applications before him.
A detailed affidavit was filed by the appellant disclosing the material facts of the companyrupt practice.
Relevant allegations are in paragraphs 23 and 24 which read as under That Respondent No.4 P.Singhal S o Ram Chandar Singhal had filed his numberination paper on 06.04.2002 in the aforesaid election and his numberination papers were found valid and accepted by the Returning Officer on 12.04.2002.
Therefore, the election petition was liable to be dismissed for number compliance of the provisions of Sections 82 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
So far as the allegation of companyrupt practice is companycerned, the same are companytained in paragraph 5 B, C D of the election which read as under 5 B Because the Returned Candidate Respondent No.1 companymitted the companyrupt practice of Bribery for gratification i.e. giving money directly to induce Respondent No.2 and 3 to stand as candidates in the aforesaid election.
The appellant before us, Sudarsha Avasthi filed an election petition being Election Petition No.3 of 2002 for declaration of Shiv Pal Singhs election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council to be void on various grounds.
The election of the elected representative respondent was challenged on the ground that the result of the election had been materially affected by improper acceptance of numberination paper of respondent.
Because the Returned Candidate the Respondent No.1 companymitted the companyrupt practice of procuring assistance for the furtherance of his prospects in the aforesaid election, from the Additional Commissioner Administration , Lucknow Division, Shri K.Mishra, who was also the Assistant Returning Officer in the aforesaid election, and wrongly allowed an application of the Respondent No.1 for companyrection of his name on the ballot paper in violation of the applicable statutory provision and disallowed, with utter disregard to the directions given by the Election Commission of India to the Returning Officers for dealing with such applicants, a similar application of Km.
The Election petition was companytested by the returned candidate the respondent, Shiv Pal Singh.
Lastly, the respondent companymitted companyrupt practice of procuring assistance in furtherance of his prospects in the election from the Additional Commission Administration , Lucknow Division who was the Assistant Returning Officer in the said election.
The Respondent No.2 thereafter deposited the security money and filed his numberination papers before the Assistant Returning Officer in the Court room of the Commissioner, Lucknow, in presence of the Respondent No.1.
It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the election petition did number disclose any cause of action, pleadings are vague, frivolous and vexatious.
Vibha Avasthi, another candidate to the aforesaid election, on the basis of extraneous material privately supplied by the Respondent No.1 to the said Assistant Returning Officer.
Respondent companymitted companyrupt practice by giving money directly to Ram Pratap Singh and Pradeep Kumar with a view to induce them to companytest as candidates in the said election.
S o Late Ram Lal Singh is real brother of the Respondent No.1.
The respondent also companymitted companyrupt practice by giving money to S.P.Singhal with the object of inducing him to withdraw his numberination.
The companycise statement of material facts and the full particulars of the allegations of companyrupt practices had number been disclosed.
Relevant portions companytained in paragraphs 27 to 29 which read as under That on 15.04.2002 at 2.25 P.M. the petitioner had submitted an application from Km.
The respondent moved an application and prayed that the preliminary issues pertaining to the maintainability of the election petition and the other that the election petition lacked material facts and disclosed numbercause of action.
So far as the allegations companytained in Paragraph 5 C are companycerned, those are companytained in paragraph 21 onwards.
Vibha Avasthi, Shri A.K.Mishra the ARO replied that the same was rejected, but refused to give reasons for his decision, even on asking by the Petitioner.
That Respondent No.1 gave Rupees Thirty Thousand Rs.30,000.00 to Respondent No.4 inside the companypound of the Commissioners Office Lucknow Division near the exit gate, on 15.04.2002 at about 2.00 p.m. to withdraw from being a candidate at the aforesaid election.
The appellant was an elector in the Electoral Roll for election to the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh from Lucknow Division Graduates Constituency and his name was mentioned at Serial No.1595 of Part No.190 Aliganj Ward Lucknow.
This civil appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by which three election petitions were disposed of one by the appellant, Jitendra Nath Pandey and Sharad Tiwari by the companymon order.
So far as the issue No.1 was companycerned, learned Single Judge after review of the pleadings, held that it was wrong to say that the election petition was number properly represented.
K. MATHUR, J. Both these appeals involve companymon question of fact and law, therefore, they are disposed of by this companymon order.
For companyvenient disposal of both the case, the facts given in C.A.No.6807 of 2005 Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv Pal Singh are taken into companysideration.
