GAJANAND SHAHI Vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Madhav Raj for the sole respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this election petition for setting aside the election of the sole respondent, who has been declared elected as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly from 170, Barbigha Assembly Constituency. The election was held on 28/10/2020 and the result was declared on 10/11/2020. The ground for setting aside the election, as claimed by the petitioner, is improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the sole respondent by the Returning Officer.

(3.) As per the averments in the petition, altogether 11 contestants were there in the electoral fray/arena, including the petitioner and the sole respondent. On the date of scrutiny i.e. 9/10/2020 , the nomination paper of Shri Ajay Kumar, an independent candidate, was found incomplete and it was rejected by the Returning Officer, but at the same time, the Returning Officer had accepted the nomination paper of the sole respondent which too was incomplete. The correct and material information were not given in the proforma of the affidavit filed by the sole respondent before the Returning Officer in Form-26. He had not filled up Part-3A of his nomination paper and on this score, his nomination paper ought to have been rejected but it was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. On the date of election, 1,19,144 electors had exercised their electoral rights in 223 polling stations, whereas 1113 postal ballet papers were received by the Returning Officer. The sole respondent was declared elected since he had received 39878 votes including postal ballots, whereas the petitioner was declared to have received 39765 votes inclusive of postal ballots.