R.K. ANAND Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of identifying the parties, it is referred as Election Petitioner and respondent No.1. Respondent no.1 presented the above civil misc. application under Sec. 151, Order 6, Rule 15 and Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with Sec. 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'Act, 1951'), Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961') and Form 25 to dismiss the election petition No.1 of 2016.

(2.) Two seats allocated to the State of Haryana in the Rajya Sabha were to fall vacant on 008.2016. Thus, a notification was issued on 24.05.2016 under Sec. 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "Act 1951") by the President of India. The Election Commission of India also issued a notification on 24.05.2016 under Sec. 39 of the Act 1951 while laying down the schedule of the election. On 11.06.2016 date of poll was fixed during the time 9.00 A.M. To 4.00 P.M. at Old Committee Room, Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Chandigarh. The election petitioner, respondents no.1 and 2 are the candidates for two seats of the members of the Rajya Sabha. Respondents no.1 and 2 were elected. The election petitioner, who was the candidate for one of the Rajya Sabha seat filed election petition under Sec. 81 of the Act, 1951 calling in question the election of respondents no.1 and 2 as members of the Rajya Sabha from the Haryana State and to conduct a fresh election to elect two members from the State of Haryana or in the alternative questioned the election of respondent no.1 and to declare the election petitioner as duly elected member of the Rajya Sabha from Haryana State under Sec. 101 of the Act, 1951, on the allegations that election was conducted in a fraudulent manner in violation of the basic principle of the conduct of elections in a just, fair and transparent manner. It was further alleged that applicant - respondent no.3 - returning officer whose name has been deleted vide order dated 14.02017, had formed an unholy alliance with respondents no.1 and 2, the returned candidates, in order to defeat the election petitioner. The applicant/returning officer misconduct himself in furtherance of the modus operandi of swapping the original violet ink sketch pen during the polling on 11.06.2016 by respondents no.1 and 2, the returned candidates, by arranging a deceptively similarly royal blue ink sketch pen in order to manipulate the rejection of valid first preference votes of the election petitioner.

(3.) First respondent has filed statement of objections to the election petition no.1 of 2016. Before commencement of trial, respondent no.1 submitted the present civil misc. application for dismissal of the election petition for non-compliance of various provisions cited supra.