MAHACHANDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. BIRENDRA NARAYAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present interlocutory application has been preferred with a prayer for summary dismissal of the election petition filed by the petitioner as per the mandate stipulated under Sec. 86(1) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'R.P. Act') read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'the Code'), on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Ss. 81, 82 and 83 of the R.P. Act and on the ground of not disclosing any cause of action.

(2.) It appears from the record that the sole respondent was an official candidate of Janta Dal (U) Party who had filed his nomination paper before the Returning Officer to contest the election of Bihar Legislative Council from 03, Saran Graduate Constituency on 10/3/2023 and also filed an affidavit in Form-26 duly sworn by him before the Notary Public, Chapra on 6/3/2023 alongwith his nomination paper. The scrutiny of the nomination papers of the candidate contesting the said election was held on 14/3/2023. No objection was raised by any of the candidate with regard to any defect in the nomination papers of the sole respondent until declaration of result on 5/4/2023. The respondent was declared elected as a Member of Bihar Legislative Council (Graduate Seat) from 03, Saran Graduate Constituency for which election was held on 31/3/2023 by a margin of altogether 5,951 votes. It is stated that he had secured total 32,239 votes. However, election petitioner being a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party got only 26,288 votes. The respondent was declared an elected and returned candidate.

(3.) The election petitioner has filed the present election petition with a prayer to set aside the election of the sole respondent by declaring his election as void for non compliance of the provisions contained under Sec. 100(1)(d) (iv) of the R.P. Act and under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is alleged by the election petitioner that the affidavit contained in Form-26 (appended to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961) filed along with nomination paper by the sole respondent is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions pointing out that redundant sub-para not scored off, the details of holding number and circle number of urban property was given instead of survey number and instead of "NO" at relevant column "ZERO" was written.