CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHATURVEDI Vs. RAJESH NANDINI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Election petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a voter of Assembly constituency No. 83 Kotma to challenge the elections of the said constituency.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the Assembly Elections were notified as per the provisions of S. 31 of Representation of the People Act. According to the programme, the date for submission of the nomination form was 23-10-93 to 30-10-93. The date of scrutiny was 1-11-93. The date for the withdrawal was 3-11-93 and the date for polling was fixed on 24-11-93. The respondent No. 1 filed nomination as candidate of National Congress (I) for the Assembly Constituency, Kotma (No. 83). According to the petitioner she had filed the nomination paper and declared her name as Rajesh Nandini Singh wife of Dalveer Singh. As alleged the said name Rajesh Nandini Singh was not recorded in the voters list of the said Assembly for the year 1993. On the other hand, at serial No. 18 name of Rajeshwari Singh wife of Dalveer Singh was recorded in the voters list. The respondent No. 1 (The Returned Candidate) filed her nomination somewhere on 29 or 30-11-1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said nomination form which deserved to be rejected was illegally accepted by the Returning Officer. According to the petitioner, she was a voter in Pushpraj garh Assembly Constituency No. 86, Shahdol. The petitioner submits that before accepting the nomination form filed by the respondent, the Returning Officer took an affidavit and directed correction of the name. The petitioner submits that corrections can be made in accordance with Rule 26 of Electoral Rules, 1960 and if the name of the voter was not corrected in the electoral roll an application could be given to the Registering Officer, who after giving a public notice could correct the name. The petitioner submits that the last date of the nomination was 30-11-93 and name of the respondent No. 1 could not be included in the electoral roll nor could it be corrected. According to the petitioner, if some entry has been made by the Registration Officer, the same is contrary to law and is illegal. The petitioner submits that name of any person cannot be included or amended in the voters list after the election process has started. The petitioner submits that the Returning Officer illegally received an application and affidavit from the respoindent and illegally ordered correction of name of the respondent. It is submitted that the action of the Returning Officer was contrary to law. It is further submitted that in accordance with S. 33(4) of the Representation of People Act, a nomination form could be submitted. It is contended that if the nomination form was not illegally accepted, the respondent could not be permitted to take part in the elections. It is further contended that name of the respondent was corrected because of the influence of her husband who is Ex-State Finance Minister and sitting Member of Parliament from Shahdol Constituency. It is also submitted that the returned candidate was not qualified and there has been a failure in complying with the provisions of S. 33 of the Representation of the People Act.

(3.) Number of other allegations were also made relating to the corrupt practise but the said allegations were later on withdrawn. It is contended by the petitioner that during the election campaign the returned candidate used pamphlets and posters. In the said pamphlets and posters the name of the printer and publisher were not mentioned, therefore use of the said pamphlets and posters was contrary to the directions. It is further submitted that respondent had committed violation of S. 127-A of Representation of the People Act, therefore also the election of respondent No. 1 deserves to be set aside.