NAROTTAM MISHRA Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 9/10/2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6023/2013. Learned counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice. The case is argued at length, hence, with the consent of counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for respondents, the appeal is disposed of finally. The Election Commission of India-Respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the appellant dated 16/8/2013. By the aforesaid notice the appellant was directed to show-cause that earlier notice dated 15/1/2013 issued to the appellant under sub-rule (5) of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1961") for falsity of account (42 cases of paid news) that why the appellant be not disqualified under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for brevity "Act of 1951"). The appellant submitted reply of notice dated 15/1/2013.

(2.) The appellant questioned issuance of notice Annexure P/1 in regard to disqualifying the appellant in exercise of power under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The Writ Court on 29/8/2013 passed the following order on interim relief:-

(3.) Intervenor filed an application before the Writ Court which was registered as I.A. No. 7510/2013 for vacation of the stay order passed by the Court on 29/8/2013. The intervenor pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29882/2011 (Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and others) modified the earlier order dated 3/11/2011 and permitted the Election Commission of India to proceed with the complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further ordered that the final order passed by the Election Commission shall not be pronounced and shall not be given effect to. It is further pleaded by the intervenor that the Apex Court passed the modified order on 2/5/2013 prior to three months of passing of the interim order by the Court dated 29/8/2013, however, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and the appellant had obtained the interim order by concealment of facts, hence, the interim order is liable to be vacated. The learned Writ Court observed that the appellant had misled the Court and consequently vacated the interim stay order dated 29/8/2013.