KARTIKRAM CHAUHAN Vs. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this election petition under Section 80/80-A read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner has challenged the election of returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 who has been elected as member of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly from Sarangarh Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste community on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination form of returned candidate respondent No. 1 by the Returning Officer which materially affected the election.

(2.) AS per the election petition, respondent No. 1 was required to submit correct nomination form for election. Respondent No. 1 has submitted nomination form as required under Section 33(1) of the Act and the forms prescribed under Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules') in Form 2-A to Form 2-E. Respondent No. 1 has submitted his nomination form as required under Rule 4 of the Rules in Form 2-A but the form submitted by respondent No. 1 was not correct in all respects in Part III of the form which was required for respondent No. 1 to give consent for nomination. The form which respondent No. 1 has submitted contains the words to in place of to but without correcting the form, respondent No. 1 has submitted defective form which was not proper. The petitioner has made objection before the Returning Officer, but the Returning Officer has illegally and improperly accepted the defective nomination form presented by respondent No. 1 which has substantially affected the election.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner opposed LA. No. 2 filed for dismissal of the election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code and argued that respondent No. 1, returned candidate of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Elections, was required to submit correct nomination form in all respects, but respondent No. 1 has not submitted correct nomination form. Defect in the nomination form' is of substantial nature which has materially affected the election of the petitioner. The petitioner has objected the same at the time of acceptance of nomination form, but the Returning Officer has illegally and improperly accepted the nomination form of respondent No. 1.