NAGORAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) RULE . Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the provisions contained in section 144 V of the said Act clearly requires verification of the pleadings in the manner as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and considering the provisions contained in Order VI, Rule 15 read with section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Additional Commissioner ought to have considered that the petitioner has sufficiently complied with the said provisions in relation to verification of the pleadings and, therefore, there was no occasion for concluding that the petitioner had failed to comply with the requirement of the provisions of section 144 V of the said Act. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. while justifying the impugned order has stated that considering the fact that the provisions contained in section 144 V of the said Act are in pari materia with the provisions of Conduct of Election Rules framed under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in Dr . ( Smt .) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal reported in AIR 1996 SC 1691 , no fault can be found with the impugned order.