NARAIN SINGH Vs. SUNDARLAL PATWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 filed against the Respondent-returned candidate Shri Sunderlal Patwa from Bhojpur Constituency No. 245 of the Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioner is a voter of this Constituency and his name has been recorded in Part No. 34 at Serial No. 676 of the Electoral Roll of Ward No. 7 of Obedullahganj. (He was not contesting candidate).

(2.) The elections of the State Legislative Assembly were announced in 1993. The election programme was notified by the Collector, Raisen on 23.10.1993. The nomination was to be filed before 30.10.93 and scrutiny was to take place in the office of the Returning Officer on 1.11.1993 at 11 a.m. The date of withdrawal of nomination was 3.11.1993 and the poll was scheduled on 24.11.1993 and the counting was fixed on 30.11.1993. The election took place on the scheduled date and the result was announced on 1.12.1993. In that, the Bhartiya Janta Party candidate-Shri Sunderlal Patwa, Respondent, was declared elected with the margin of 62,216 votes defeating his nearest rival Ajay Singh of Indan Nation Congress, who secured 33048 votes. In that election, Ramesh Chandra s/o Shri Ratanlal also filed four nomination papers which were received by the Returning Officer and they were registered at Serial Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 on 27.10.1993. All these four nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officers on the ground that the name of the candidate Ramesh Chandra was not recorded at Serial No. 95 in Part No. 37. The name of Ramesh Chandra s/o Ratanlal was in fact recorded at Serial No. 485 instead of serial No. 95. Therefore, the Returning Officer who examined these four nomination papers, did not find them in order and rejected all these nomination papers of Ramesh Chandra. It is alleged that this was due to inadvertence of his Advocate-Shaligram Shrivastava who filled his nomination papers and wrongly described his serial number. It is alleged that Shaligram Shrivastava was duly instructed and authorised by Ramesh Chandra. Therefore, the rejection of nominations of Rameshchandra was improper and the election of Respondent is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1951').

(3.) The Anr. candidate-Sarfaraz Khan son of Sahab Khan filed two nomination papers which were registered at Serial Nos. 30 and 31. Sarfaraz Khan was an elector of 239 Bhopal South Constituency. Along with his nominations, he filed certified copy of his entry in the electoral roll of 239 Bhopal South Constituency. But his nominations were rejected on the ground that his age was 24 years according to the copy of the voter list filed by him. The Petitioner submitted that as per his information, the age of Sarfaraz Khan was 25 years on the dale of filing nominations and his nominations were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer; therefore, the election of the Respondent is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act of 1951.