ASHOK JAISWAL Vs. SUDHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 8-2-2011 passed by District Judge, Indore in Election Petition No. 7/10, whereby Election Petition filed by petitioners was dismissed, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that on 25-1-2010 petitioner filed a petition under section 441 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, wherein election of respondent No. 1 as Councillor from Ward No. 67 was challenged. In the petition, it was alleged that in the election, petitioner was the candidate for Councillor from Ward No. 67 and submitted his nomination form as candidate of Indian National Congress. It was alleged that petitioner submitted the nomination form on 26-11 -2009 along with requisite affidavit, which was accepted by respondent No. 5 and the Symbol was allotted to the petitioner. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 also submitted his nomination form along with affidavit before respondent No. 1, which was accepted on 30-11-2009 and respondent No. 1 was declared as candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party. In the petition, it was alleged that in the affidavit which was filed by respondent No. 1 along with nomination form was not containing the correct information. It was alleged that the facts stated in the affidavit were false. It was alleged that since the affidavit submitted by respondent No. 1 was false, therefore, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the election of respondent No. 1 as Councillor be quashed. By the impugned order learned Court below dismissed the petition, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that as per Rule 24-A of M. P. Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 a candidate who wants to contest the election is required to submit an affidavit. It is submitted that upon enquiry it was found that the facts stated in the affidavit which was filed by the respondent No. 1 were not correct. It is submitted that the full description of the property was not mentioned in the said affidavit. It is submitted that the tax which was payable on the property was not paid by the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that since filing of affidavit is statutory requirement for a candidate who intends to contest the election, therefore, affidavit must contain correct particulars and if it is found that the particulars mentioned in the affidavit are not correct, then the election can be challenged by way of filing election petition. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Court below committed error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside.