ARUN DATTATRAY SAWANT Vs. KISAN SHANKAR KATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Election Petition is filed by a voter of 56, Ambernath Legislative Assembly Constituency in Thane District for declaration that the nomination of the Respondent has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer of 56, Ambernath Legislative Assembly Constituency and the election of Respondent is void due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of People Act and Rules and Orders made under the Act. The Petitioner has asked for a declaration that the election of the Respondent as a member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.56, Ambernath Legislative Assembly Constituency in the election held on 13th October 2004 is null and void.

(2.) The relevant facts to be borne in mind are that the Respondent filed his nomination on 20th September 2004 as official candidate of the Nationalist Congress Party and his symbol was "Clock" in respect of the elections to be held on 13th October 2004. The objections were filed in relation to the nomination of the Respondent, however, the Returning Officer accepted his nomination. The Polling in the Constituency was held on 13th October 2004 and the result thereof was declared on 16th October 2004. In the said election, besides the Respondent, other five candidates were in the fray. Out of them, two were independent candidates, the other three were the official candidates of political parties namely; Bahujan Samaj Party, Shivsena and Samajwadi Party. The results declared by the Returning Officer in Form 21 E on 16th October 2004 is as follows S.No. Name of Candidate Party Name of Votes Affiliation Polled <IMG>JUDGEMENT_285_LAWS(BOM)8_2007.jpg</IMG>

(3.) The Petitioner who asserts to be one of the voter from the 56, Ambernath Legislative Assembly Constituency, has approached this Court to declare the election of the Respondent is void and invalid on the ground under Sec. 100(1)(d)(i) of improper acceptance of Respondent's nomination and also on the ground provided by Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. According to the Petitioner, the nomination of the Respondent and his consequential election was void on account of non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India or of the Representation of People Act or any Rules or Orders made under the Act. The basis on which such relief is sought, is elaborated in the Election Petition to which I shall make reference a little later.