GOUTAM BUDDHA Vs. SATYANARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the election petition filed by the respondent/returned candidate.

(2.) As per the pleading made, on 02.11.2018, the petitioner submitted nomination form before the Returning Officer for the Legislative Assembly Constituency No.48 Raipur Rural. The pleading further is that after perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner the returning officer intimated the petitioner that one of the proposer of the petitioner is not the voter of the assembly constituency and directed the petitioner to remove the defect within a stipulated time. The petitioner could not remove the said deficiency, in a result, the returning officer rejected the nomination form for want of proper number of proposer. It is pleaded that the return candidate/respondent No.1 Satya Narayan Sharma was a candidate of Indian National Congress submitted his nomination form on 31.10.2018. On 03.11.2018 the scrutiny of the nomination form was made and certain objections were raised by the petitioner about wrong discloser of certain averments in the nomination form by the return candidate however those objections were eventually rejected. It is contended by the petitioner that while rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner, the returning officer was hand in gloves with respondent No.1/ the return candidate. Therefore, undue favour was made to the return candidate by accepting his nomination form. It is admitted fact that the respondent No.1 was declared as returned candidate of Raipur Rural. The petitioner contended that the election of the returned candidate cannot be said to be a valid and legal election for the reason that his nomination papers were wrongly accepted, therefore, the same is sought to be canceled. The prayer is made that the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by respondent No.1 was improper and illegal, therefore, consequently, the election would be void.

(3.) After notice an application has been filed by returned candidate under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The primary objection is made that the petitioner is not the voter of constituency number 48 of Raipur Rural. It is further contended that the nomination paper of petitioner was rejected during the scrutiny, therefore, he cannot be deemed to be the candidate in the election in a result he has no locus standi to file the election petition. It is further stated in application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC that the nomination papers were filed by the petitioner knowing full well that one of his proposer is not the voter of constituency and when the returning officer had asked to rectify the same, the same was deliberately not done and therefore, the nomination papers were rejected for the reason that very filing of nomination paper by the petitioner was erroneous at it's inception. It is further stated by the respondent since the petitioner himself did not remove the defect despite time given to him, the petitioner cannot maintain the election petition for want of locus standi. It is further submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner as against the nomination papers of the respondent/returned candidate, no substantial grounds were raised which requires any adjudication and predominantly election petition is not tenable for want of locus standi of the petitioner.