BHAGWAN DASS Vs. THAKUR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order dated 31st July, 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the same lacks material facts.

(2.) Delhi, as defined under the DMC Act, is divided into 124 wards. Each of the aforesaid wards is to return one Councillor to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Ward No. 122 is a reserved ward from where only a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste was competent to seek election as a Councillor to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The election of the Councillor to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was last held on 23.2.1999 by the Election Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the DMC Act. The results of the aforesaid election of the Councillors were published on 3.3.1997 in the Official Gazette issued by the State Election Commissioner under Section 14 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

(3.) The petitioner herein was one of the candidates in the said election for electing a Councillor from Ward No. 122. He was set up as an official candidate by the Bhartiya Janata Party.' There were altogether 5 contesting candidates from the aforesaid constituency out of which Mr. Thakur Dass, respondent No. 1 was the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress. According to the results of the election declared by the Returning Officer, the petitioner polled 7117 valid votes while Mr. Thakur Dass polled 6987 valid votes and accordingly the petitioner was declared elected by the Returning Officer by a margin of 130 votes. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the aforesaid result of the election of the Ward No. 122 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner from the aforesaid ward as envisaged under Section 15 of the DMC Act, 1957. The petitioner herein filed the written statement controverting the allegations made in the petition and raised certain grounds and pleas contending, inter alia, that the petition did not disclose any cause of action and that the same was liable to be dismissed. It was further contended that the election petition suffered from lack of concise statement of material facts. It was also stated that the allegations made by the respondent are vague and are in the nature of roving and fishing enquiry. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 13 issues were framed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who was entrusted to decide the fate of the aforesaid petition. Amongst the aforesaid issues, two issues which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition were framed in the following manner: .