VISHWAMBER DATT SHARMA Vs. S P SINGH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the order dated February 18, 1984 passed by Shri S.P. Singh Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Delhi (Election Tribunal) dismissing the election petition of the petitioner under Section 15 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

(2.) The polling for election of 100 Councillors for Municipal Corporation of Delhi took place on February 5, 1983 under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules,1962(hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner was a candidate for election to Municipal Ward No : 68 in the election held on February 5, 1983. In all five candidates earlier filed their nomination papers, out of which three withdraw their candidature and there remained the peti- tioner and respondent No. 2 as the contesting candidates. The counting took place on February 6,1983 in the Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. The result of the counting of the votes was announced. There was an order of recount by the Returning Officer who on recount declared the result of the election. In the declaration made by the Returning Officer, the petitioner secured 7100 valid votes whereas Shri Jai Parkash Aggarwal, respondent No. 2 secured 7130 valid votes; 425 votes being invalid. The total votes polled were thus 14655. Respondent No. 2 was declared elected with a margin of 30 votes.

(3.) The petitioner filed a petition under Section 15 of the Act Challenging the election of respondent No. 2. and seeking a declaration of election in his own favour. The notice of election petition was issued and served on the respondents. Respondent No. 2 who is the contesting respondent took three preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable as it contained vague and indefinite allegations and the pleas made therein are vague not supported by material facts and in a nature of roving and fishing enquiry and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed; that the petition is not maintainable as it does not comply with the provisions of Section 15 (4) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts and sufficient particulars of the grounds on which the election is called in question by the petitioner; and that the petition is defective and the same has not been verified in accordance with law. Several other p1eas on merits were also taken. The learned Election Tribunal framed the issues on May 25, 1983. Issue No. I which was later treated as a preliminary issue is: