RAJAN SUSHANT Vs. SUJAN SINGH PATHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Rajan Sushant has filed the present petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) challenging the election of respondent 1 Shri Sujan Singh Pathania to the Himachal Pradesh 3o -Jawali Legislative Assembly constituency held on 27 -2 -1990. It has been prayed by him that the aforesaid election be declared void and further that respondent 1 be disqualified for a period of six years under sections 8 and 8 -A of the Act and also that a declaration be issued to the effect that the petitioner himself stands duly elected A number of corrupt practices within the ambit of the Act have been alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate himself or on his behalf within the four -corners of the Act but it is not necessary to narrate the said allegations in detail for the purposes of this order.

(2.) Respondents 2 to 6 were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte by the Court on 25 -6 -1990. Out of them, the ex parte proceedings against respondent 3 were later on set aside. As it is respondents 1 and 3 have filed their written statements Whereas respondent 1 has raised a number of preliminary objections, respondent 3 has supported the election petition by admitting various allegations made in the petition. While scrutinising the election petition, the Registrar raised some objections as noticed in his orders dated 20 -4 -1990 and 12 -6 -1990. According to respondent 1, the election petition is liable to be dismissed on account of the said objections. Further, objections raised by respondent 1 are to the effect that the election petition does not contain concise statement of material facts as provided in section 83 (1) (a) and the information stipulated in section 83 (1) (b) of the Act and that the averments made in the petition in any case do not constitute the grounds within the ambit of section 100 (1) and section 101 of the Act for which reasons the election petition merits dismissal at the very outset. It also entails dismissal because the affidavit filed in support of corrupt practices is not in accordance with law and the election petition and annexures and schedule attached thereto have not been signed and verified in accordance with law, besides the copy supplied to respondent i being not the true copy of the election petition.

(3.) The following preliminary issues were framed on 8 -10 -1990 i -