HARIKRISHNA LAL Vs. BABU LAL MARANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An election, to choose one member to the Jharkhand legislative assembly from 23, Ramgarh Assembly Constituency, was held in the month of January-February 2001 to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of the then sitting member. Though there were more than two candidates in the election fray, the legal battle in the Court arena has continued only between the appellant and the respondent, the two out of the several candidates, in the backdrop of the controversy arising for decision. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by the returning officer. He could not participate in the elecions.

(2.) As per the election programme notified by the Election Commission of India, the nomination papers could be filed on January 25,2001 through January 31, 2001 between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. before the returning officer who was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ramgarh. The scrutiny of the nominations took place on February 1, 2001. February 3, 2001 was the date for withdrawal of nomination, if any. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by reference to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) for failure of the appellant to furnish certain information in a prescribed pro forma supported by an affidavit, stating as to whether the petitioner was not disqualified to contest the election due to any conviction for committing any offence as required under Section 8 of the Act. The prescribed pro forma for furnishing the information and the form of affidavit, though supplied to the petitioner by the returning officer, were not filed up to the date and time appointed for scrutiny of nominations. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the controversy stands resolved by a recent decision of this Court in Shaligram Shrivastava v. Naresh Singh Patel (2003) 2 SCC 176 . The appellant appearing in person has very fairly stated that he does not want to pursue any further this plea, disputing the rejection of his nomination paper, in view of the abovesaid decision of this Court.

(3.) The next controversy, and now the only one surviving for decision, is as to whether the nomination paper filed by the respondent suffered from any defect of a substantial character inasmuch as this issue has been highlighted by the appellant from very many angles it would be useful to reproduce and set out from the averments made in the election petition itself as to what the appellant's case is. According to the appellant-