RAO OM PARKASH ENGINEER Vs. NARENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two Election Petitions 5 and 6 of 1996 both of which call in question the election of Narender Singh respondent to the 89-Ateli Assembly constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly held in April, 1996. The petitions have been filed under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (referred to hereinafter as the Act). In Election Petition 5 of 1996 the election has been challenged on the ground that the nomination papers of the petitioner therein were improperly rejected whereas in the other petition the ground of challenge is that the nomination papers of two other persons Suresh Kumar and Yoginder were improperly rejected. These petitions were heard together and since the respondent was to produce the same witnesses in both the cases, counsel for the parties agreed that in order to avoid unnecessary repetition in recording the same evidence the statements of the witnesses of the respondent as recorded in Election Petition 6 of 1996 be treated as evidence in the other case as well and copies thereof placed on the record of that case. The same was accordingly done.

(2.) THE Governor of Haryana called upon the constituencies in the State of Haryana to elect members for the Haryana Legislative Assembly and thereafter the Election Commission notified the election programme for holding elections in the State as under :-

(3.) SHRI Vineet K.Garg, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul was the Returning Officer for the Ateli Assembly constituency and he rejected the nomination papers of Suresh Kumar and Yogender on the ground that they had not taken the oath before him as envisaged in Article 173 of the Constitution. This Article provides that a person is not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he is a citizen of India and makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution. It is alleged that Suresh Kumar and Yogender took the oath, signed their oath forms and the Returning Officer too put his signatures certifying the fact of oath having been taken by them but later he scored off his signatures to help the respondent by illegally and improperly rejecting their nomination papers on the ground that they had not taken the oath. The plea is that the Returning Officer was out to help the Congress Party candidate, namely the respondent and for that end he did all this thus acting in a most arbitrary and whimsical manner at this behest. It is also the case of the petitioner that Suresh Kumar belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the Congress Party including the respondent were of the view that all Scheduled Castes in the State were with the Congress Party and regarded Scheduled Castes as their definite vote bank and, therefore, they thought that if Suresh Kumar contested the election he would get a large number of Scheduled Caste votes which would damage the chances of the Congress candidate. It is for this reason, according to the petitioner, that the respondent prevailed upon the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers of Suresh Kumar even though he presented the same personally and took the oath before him. It is further alleged that the respondent prevailed upon the Returning Officer to improperly reject the nomination paper of Yogender as well who was being sponsored by the Bahujan Samaj Party and he too would have claimed a large number of Scheduled Caste votes to the disadvantage of the Congress candidate. It is pleaded that both Suresh Kumar and Yogender personally presented their nomination papers before the Returning Officer on 3.4.1996 at 2.13 P.M. and 2.15 P.M. respectively and that they made and subscribed the oath before him at the time of presenting the nomination papers. Another ground on which the election of the respondent is being challenged is that his nomination paper had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer though he (respondent) did not make and subscribe a valid oath at the time of filing his nomination papers or at any other time before scrutiny. The plea is that the improper acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent has materially affected the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate.