TRILOK CHAND JAIN Vs. AZIMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called in question the election of respondent No. 1 as a member of Bihar Legislative Council from Purnea-Cum-Araria-Cum-Kishanganj local authority and has sought relief that he be declared as duly elected member of Bihar Legislative Council in place of Respondent 1.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Purnea in capacity as returning officer, on direction of Election Commission, on 4-6-2003 notified programme for holding election for a member of Bihar Legislative Council from the aforesaid local authority. According to the programme the petitioner, respondents 1 to 23 and six others filed their nomination on 24-6-2002. The Returning Officer scruti- nised nomination papers and except two all other nomination papers were found valid. Later on four candidates withdrew their nominations leaving twenty-four candidates in field including the petitioner and respondent No, 1. The election was held on 10-7-2003 and after counting the result was announced on 13-7-2003. As per result the Respondent No. 1 received 2469 valid votes whereas the petitioner received only 2463 valid votes. Accordingly Respondent No. 1 was declared elected by margin of only six votes over the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 mainly on two grounds. It is averred that the election in question was materially affected due to wrong and improper acceptance of nomination paper of Respondent No. 1. There was substantial defect in filling nomination paper of Respondent No. 1 inasmuch as he furnished serial number and part number of voter list of the year 2003 and also filed certified copy of voter list of 2003 instead voter list of 2002 which was effective at tha point of time. At that point of time the vote list of 2003 was pending for final publication. Therefore, the nomination paper of Respondent No. 1 being not properly filled up and suffered from incurable defect was fit to be rejected. The Returning Officer illegally and improperly and against the provision o the Representation of the People Act accepted his nomination paper. It has materially affected the election and hence the election of Respondent No. 1 is fit to be declared as void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "R.P. Act").