KICHCHE JOGA Vs. LAKHMA KAWASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent and 3 other candidates contested Assembly Elections, 2008 of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly from Constituency No. 90 i.e. Konta Constituency. Polling took place on 14.11.2008 and the result was declared on 8.12.2008. The first respondent was elected by a margin of 192 votes. He was a candidate of Indian National Congress. The petitioner was an electorate and his name finds place in the voter list of Konta Constituency. The election of respondent No. 1 has been called in question on the ground that various voters of Konta Constituency, who were residing in various Salwa Judum Camps on the date of the election, were not allowed to cast their votes by concerned authorities for want of their proper identification. The authorities concerned had not applied correct norms issued by the Election Commission of India for identification of the voters who were residing in Salwa Judum Camps. This has materially affected the election. If the voters of Konta Constituency, who were residing in Salwa Judum Camps, would have been allowed to cast their votes, the result of the election would have been different. Besides the above, the petitioner has also taken the plea of improper acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No. 1, which according to the petitioner would have been dismissed. The petitioner has also taken the plea of improper counting saying that irregularities were committed at the time of counting of votes of polling booth No. 56, as there is discrepancy in the documents of total votes cast in Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and the total votes shown to be secured by the candidates. The petitioner has also taken the plea of misuse of the Government Machinery and that the expense incurred by returned candidate was much over the limit fixed. I.A. No. 3 has been filed by respondent No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.

(2.) Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, submitted that the verification of the petition as also attestation of the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent were not proper. Therefore, as per Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or Act, 1951), the election petition should be dismissed at the threshold. Apart from the above, he also argued that on a bare reading of the entire election petition, it does not disclose a tribal cause of action, therefore, on this account also the petition should be dismissed at the threshold.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. M.L. Saket, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, opposed these arguments and submitted that the verification in the petition is proper; identical copies of the petition have also been properly attested by the petitioner; therefore, the ground taken by respondent No. 1 relating to verification cannot be sustained. The petitioner has challenged improper acceptance of nomination of respondent No. 1 and has also challenged the irregularities committed in counting of the votes and has raised various other grounds which disclose a cause of action in favour of the petitioner as per grounds contained in Section 100 of the Act, hence the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (I.A. No. 3) should be dismissed.