A DHANWANTI CHANDELA Vs. BALBIR TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of her election petition CS (OS) No. 44 of 2007 challenging the election of Respondent No. 1, Mr. Balbir Tyagi, to the Municipal Ward No. 116, Vikas Puri, New Delhi by the impugned judgment dated 3rd April 2010 of the learned Additional District Judge ( ADJ?), the Petitioner A. Dhanwanti Chandela has filed the present petition.

(2.) At the election to Municipal Ward No.116 held on 5th April 2007, the Petitioner was the candidate of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha ( JMM?) and Respondent No. 1 Balbir Tyagi was the candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP?). Respondent No. 4 was the other contesting candidate. In the election petition filed on 24th April 2007 the Petitioner stated that subsequent to the declaration of results she came to know through various sources that Respondent No. 1 had not complied with the rules and the notification issued by the State Election Commission as regards the maintenance of accounts and expenses. It was averred that Respondent No. 1 had appointed one Mr. Raj Pal who was a permanent employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( MCD?) as his polling agent at the polling station No. 107 in Ward No. 116 on the election date, i.e. 5th April 2007. It was further averred that Respondent No. 1, with a view to alluring voters, had got a full page advertisement inserted in the issues of Jan Manas Weekly dated 18th -24th March 2006, 25th-31st March 2007 and 1st-6th April 2007 and had paid a sum of Rs. 24,000/- for each publication. The expenses towards the said advertisement had not been shown in the statement of expenses incurred by Respondent No. 1 on the election. Further, it was stated that Respondent No. 1 appointed Mr. Rohtash, who was a permanent employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation ( DTC?), as polling agent at polling station No. 106 and this amounted to corrupt practice in terms of Section 17 (1) (b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ( DMC Act?). The Petitioner claimed that she got the second highest number of votes after Respondent No. 1 and should be declared elected.

(3.) In the written statement filed by Respondent No. 1, it was stated in para 9 that the Petitioner did not verify the petition in terms of Section 15 (4) (c) of the DMC Act. Respondent No. 1 stated that Mr. Davinder Chadha was the only polling agent appointed by him. He denied having appointed Mr. Raj Pal as a polling agent. It was alleged that the name Raj Pal? had been inserted in the form for appointment of polling agent for polling station No. 107 in a different handwriting and at a later stage. Neither his parentage nor his address was mentioned in the said form which on the face of it appeared to be a forged and fabricated document, so far as mentioning of name of Rajpal as a polling agent is concerned. Further it was averred that there could not possibly be a nomination of more than one polling agent in one form. Such a form or a form with incomplete particulars would not be accepted by the Returning Officer (R.O)/Presiding Officer (P.O). Respondent No. 1 denied that he had not maintained the accounts and expenses or the vouchers for the expenses incurred. He further denied that he got full page advertisements published in the Jan Manas Weekly. It was stated that there was no such newspaper at least not in the area where Respondent No. 1 resided or had contested the elections. It is further averred that on verification, it was found that there was no such newspaper published from the said address. In fact from that address another newspaper Nai? [ Newspaper Association of India ] was being published. It is submitted that the three receipts of Rs. 24,000/- each were forged and fabricated. No such money was ever paid and no advertisement published. It was further denied that Respondent No. 1 had appointed Mr. Rohtash as his polling agent. It is stated that the document does not bear the signature of Mr. Rohtash. It is averred that it seems that somebody has manipulated some blank signed paper pertaining to appointment of Polling Agent by the answering Respondent and the blanks in the same were filled in at a later stage. 4. On 18th May 2009 the learned ADJ framed the following issues: 1. Whether Raj Pal an employee of Horticulture Department of MCD had been appointed as an election agent of the Respondent No. 1? If yes, its effect. (OPP) 2. Whether Rohtash an employee of DTC had been appointed as an election agent of the Respondent No. 1? If yes, its effect. (OPP)