RAKESH KUMAR Vs. J P NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present election petition, Dr. Rakesh Kumar has challenged the election of Shri Suresh Bhardwaj, res-pondent 2, to the Himachal Pradesh Legis-lative Assembly from Shimla-8 constituency. The petitioner is stated to have passed his MBBS examination from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, in November 1988, he completed his compulsory internship in December 1989 and thereafter joined the house job for a period of six months with effect from 1/01/1990 at an honorarium of Rs. 2750.00 per mensem. He wanted to fight elections for Shimla-8 constituency but, as per his allegations, his nomination papers as independent candidate were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer on Feb-ruary 5, 1990. 1t is the sole ground on which the election of respondent 2 has been chal-lenged.

(2.) Respondent 2 raised a number of preliminary objections in his reply which gave rise to the framing of as many as six issues on 5/09/1990. Since the election petition can be disposed of as a result of the findings which are recorded hereunder against Issue No. l, there appears no need to advert to the remaining issues. Issue No. 1 has arisen on account of a preliminary objection taken up by respondent 2 that the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inasmuch as the petition was not accompanied by as many copies thereof as there were respondents mentioned in the petition. Also, the copies were not attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copies of the petition. Issue No. 1 runs as follows :-

(3.) Both the parties were afforded due opportunity to adduce evidence on the above issue. Whereas respondent 2 examined Shri M. R. Verma. Registrar of this Court as RW 2 in addition to himself stepping into the witness box as RW 1, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. In other words, he did not have anything to say on the points on which evidence was led by res-pondent 2 pertaining to the above issue about non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Act.