(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 28/10/2024 passed by the Returning Officer by which the objections submitted by the petitioner against the nomination form of the respondent No.3 have been rejected and the nomination form of the respondent No.3 for contesting the elections of the Member of Legislative Assembly (for short, "the MLA") from Dausa constituency has been accepted.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of submitting the nomination form, the respondent No.3 has made false declaration in his nomination form and he has submitted false affidavit with incorrect information. Counsel submits that an objection was taken by the petitioner before the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of the respondent No.3. In the said application, it was submitted that the respondent No.3 has not furnished the Income Tax Returns of the preceding three financial years and the complete details of his bank accounts are not furnished. Counsel submits that such an act of the respondent No.3 amounts to corrupt practice as defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCR 892. Counsel submits that such act of the respondent No.3 falls within the definition of the undue influence under Sec. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, "the Act of 1951"). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the nomination submitted by the respondent No.3 for contesting election of the MLA should have been rejected by the Returning Officer. Counsel submits that none of the objections taken by the petitioner, were dealt and considered logically by the Returning Officer and the nomination of the respondent No.3 has been accepted vide impugned order dtd. 28/10/2024. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.
(3.) Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.