SONDARVA ASHOKKUMAR NANJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Tolia, learned advocate for the petitioner, invites our attention to para 16 (2) of the order No. 3/er/2003/js-II dated 27th March, 2003 of the Election Commission of India (Annexure-F to the petition), which reads as under:-"the said affidavit by each candidate shall be duly sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary Public or a Commissioner of Oaths appointed by the High Court of the State concerned. " (emphasis supplied)

(2.) MR. Tolia further invites our attention to the impugned order dated 25th August, 2009 (Annexure-A to the petition) of the Election Officer and Prant Officer rejecting the petitioner's nomination form on the ground that the affidavit for declaration of the assets and government dues was not sworn before the competent authority. Mr. Tolia submits that the affidavit containing the information about the assets and the government dues of the petitioner was sworn before the Notary Public as permitted by the above order of the Election Commissioner of India.

(3.) IN response to the notice, Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned AGP appears for the respondents and submits under instructions of Mr. Sanjay Vasava, Deputy Collector, that the Election Commission of India has issued the Handbook for Returning Officers 2008 in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring the candidates to declare their assets on affidavit. Mr. Raval points out that the Annexure-I to the said handbook prescribes the format of affidavit to be furnished by a candidate along with nomination paper and " (a) details of movable assets, and (b) details of immovable assets" with particulars of location, survey number, total measurement, current market value, etc. are required to be shown as a part of the affidavit to be sworn by the candidate and not as an annexure to the affidavit. Mr. Raval, therefore, submits that what the Returning Officer intended to convey, while rejecting the nomination form by the impugned communication dated 25. 8. 2009 (Annexure-A to the petition), was that the petitioner's affidavit was not in the format prescribed by the competent authority.