MOHD CHAND PASHA Vs. T MADHUSUDHAN REDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the rejection of his nomination for the 35-Adilabad Parliamentary Constituency, petitioner filed this petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that in pursuance of the notification issued by the Election Commission of India, he filed his nomination for the 35 Adilabad Parliamentary Constituency on 29-3-2004, at about 1-45 p.m., before the returning officer (second respondent) by depositing Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit, and took the oath as required, and that the second respondent through his memo dated 29-3-2004, directed him to produce the proforma affidavit in Form No.26 positively 'before 11-00 a.m.,' on 2-4-2004 and though he sent his representative, along with his affidavit in Form No.26, with a request to be present before the second respondent 'at 11 a.m.,' on 2-4-2004 though his representative entered the chambers of the 2nd respondent when his name at S.No.10 was called at the time of scrutiny of the nominations, and requested him to receive his affidavit in Form No.26, second respondent while refusing to receive the same on the ground that it was presented to him at 11-15 a.m., on 2-4-2004 rejected his nomination, and since his request for furnishing a copy of the order of rejection of his nomination was ignored he, after sending a complaint to the Chief Election Officer Hyderabad on 4-4-2004 about the second respondent not furnishing a copy of the order rejecting his nomination, filed W.P.No.7116 of 2004 questioning the rejection of his nomination by the 2nd respondent, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable at the stage of admission on 15-4-2004, and that the second respondent furnished a copy of the order rejecting his nomination later and after election, second respondent declared the first respondent as duly elected to the 35-Adilabad Parliamentary Constituency and since his nomination is improperly rejected the election of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside.

(3.) First respondent filed his written statement inter alia contending that inasmuch as every contesting candidate has to give an affidavit, furnishing information mentioned in Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short "the Act") and since petitioner, who failed to give such affidavit with his nomination, was absent by 11-00 a.m., on 2-4-2004 i.e., the time and date of scrutiny of nominations, and since K. Sathaiah, said to be a representative of the petitioner entered the chambers of second respondent, without any letter of authority from the petitioner, at 11-15 a.m., and intended to present some papers to the second respondent, on an objection raised by Sri Mothe Barik Rao one of the candidates that filed a nomination that no papers can be received after expiry of the time prescribed, second respondent passed the order rejecting the nomination of the petitioner, and since petitioner did not make all the candidates that contested the election parties to the petition, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.