AJAY RAI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHRI NARENDRA MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners namely Ajay Rai and Madhav Prasad Upadhyay have filed this petition under sections 80, 84, 98 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of the sole respondent Sri Narendra Modi (the returned candidate) as a Member of the Parliament from 77 Varanasi Parliamentary Constituency (hereinafter referred to as the constituency) in the 15th General Elections of the Parliament. The General Elections for constituting new House of Public (Parliament) was notified by the President of India vide Notification dated 05.03.2014. As per the notification with respect to the constituency following election schedule was declared by the Election Commission of India : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(ALL)12_2016.html</FRM>

(2.) Petitioner no.1, Ajay Rai filed his nomination paper as a candidate of the Indian National Congress and was allotted the symbol of Hanth Ka Panja (open palm). Petitioner no.2 is an electorate of the same constituency. The respondent, Sri Narendra Modi (returned candidate) submitted his nomination paper on 24.04.2014 as a candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party and was allotted the symbol of Kamal Ka Phool (Lotus flower). The Returning Officer after completing the process for scrutinizing the nomination papers declared as many as 42 candidates in fray. A list in terms of Sec. 38 of the Act was published by the Returning Officer. The polling of the election in the constituency took place on 12.05.2014 and the counting of the same was scheduled for 16.05.2014. The results were announced on the same day itself, i.e. 16.05.2014 and the sole respondent was declared as the returned candidate from the constituency.

(3.) The present petition challenging the election of the respondent as a returned candidate was presented before this court on 30.06.2014. Notices were issued to the sole respondent vide order dated 18.07.2014. The respondent filed written statement on 20.12.2014. Before filing the written statement the respondent filed two applications dated 29.10.2014 - one under Sec. 86 (1) of the Act (Paper No. A-11) praying to dismiss the election petition for noncompliance of the provisions contained in Sec. 81 (3) of the Act and the other application under Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Paper No. A-10) praying for striking off paragraphs 7 to 34 of the election petition under Order 6, Rule 16 of the C.P.C. and further for dismissing the election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. as it did not disclose any cause of action. Both these applications are supported by affidavits (Paper Nos. A-16 17) of the respondent. The petitioners filed counter affidavits to both the applications to which the respondent filed rejoinder affidavits (Paper Nos. A-18 19). Sri S.P. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have been heard on the aforementioned two applications and the material placed before me on record has been perused.