GOPAL PRASAD MALAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought by the petitioner through the present writ petition has been formulated in paragraph-1 as follows-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having filed his nomination on 29th April, 2019 as a candidate for the Parliamentary Election for Patna Sahib Constituency, he was entitled to an opportunity for making formal corrections such as insertion of comma, full stop, yes or no in the nomination paper. It is submitted that despite being present on the next date, namely 30th April, 2019, and having filed a representation before the Returning Officer on the said date (Annexure-1), he was not permitted to make appropriate corrections even though other candidates present in the office were permitted to make corrections in their respective nomination papers.

(3.) Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad on behalf of the Election Commission of India submit that the writ petition in itself is completely vague and does not contain even the minimum particulars to support the averments of the petitioner. A copy of the nomination paper has not been enclosed with the writ petition to indicate the nature of the defects which were allegedly not permitted to be removed. Moreover, on the averments contained in paragraph-6 of the writ petition itself, it is manifest that the petitioner had been communicated with regard to the defects in the nomination paper and the Returning Officer had allowed the petitioner to make necessary corrections within the stipulated period. In this backdrop, it is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been prevented or precluded from making appropriate corrections if notice for the same purpose had admittedly been given to the petitioner.