MANORAMA DOBRIYAL SHARMA Vs. VINOD UNIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 19 -9 -2005 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, in Election Petition No. 18 of 2003, Smt. Vinod Uniyal v. Smt. Manorama Dobriyal Sharma and Ors. whereby the election petition has been partly allowed and as common questions are involved for determination in both the appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. By the impugned order, the election of Smt. Manorama Dobriyal to the office of Nagar Pramukh, Nagar Nigam Dehradun was declared void. However, the petition to declare Smt. Vinod Uniyal as elected Nagar Pramukh was dismissed.

(2.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to the present appeals are that elections to the office of Nagar Pramukh and Sabhasads of Nagar Nigam, Dehradun were held on 1 -2 -2003. Besides the two Petitioners Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 contested the election of Nagar Pramukh. The counting of votes was done on 3 -2 -2003 and 4 -2 -2003 and, ultimately, Smt. Manorama Dobriyal. who secured 51, 165 votes, was declared elected by a margin of 4, 706 votes to the office of Nagar Pramukh followed by Smt. Vinod Uniyal at the second place with 46, 459 votes by the Returning Officer/ District Magistrate, Dehradun.

(3.) THE election petition was resisted by the Respondent No. 1 Smt. Manorama Dobriyal Sharma, who filed her written statement asserting that she was rightly declared elected as Nagar Pramukh. She also asserted that the election was conducted in accordance with the 74lh amendment of the Constitution and under the superintendence, directions and guidance of the State Election Commission. It was also asserted that the counting was Licence of agents of the candidates and the candidates themselves and the Respondent No. 1 was rightly declared as winning candidate. The petition has been filed with ulterior motive against the law and Rules, which is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence. The petition was not properly presented, therefore, the same is not legally maintainable. The Petitioner has not paid sufficient court fee. The petition is bad for want of legal notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure and defective for non -joinder of State Election Commission. The petition is also bad for non -joinder of Smt. Seema Bhatia, who also filed her nomination and that the petition is defective for non -joinder of Additional District Magistrate (Executive), who was the Returning Officer.