MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. BHEEMA RAJ MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHENDRA Kumar, petitioner, has filed this election petition agast in Bheem Raj. Elections were held on 11. 11. 1993. Bheem Raj respondent was declared elected from Aspur Assembly Constituency No. 136. The election has been challenged by way of this petition that the respondent had given wrong information in the nomination form with respect to his age by concealing the material fact. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent passed out the Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 1987 where his date of birth is entered as 10. 8. 1969. In short the entire case as projected in the petition is that the respondent was below the age of 25 years at the time of the filing of the nomination form and under Article 173 of the Constitution of India as well as for qualifying for the membership of the State Legislature. Under Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a candidate seeking such election is not duly qualified to contest if he is less than 25 years of age. This petition was presented in this Court on 3. 12. 1993/10. 12. 1993. Whereafter this Court issued notices to the respondent. After completion of service Mr. N. M. Lodha, Advocate put up his appearance on 21. 4. 1994 and sought time to file the written-statement for which the case was adjourned to 23. 5. 1994 when the malter come up on 23-5-1994 the respondent moved a petition raising preliminary objections for out-right dismissal of the petition under Section 83 read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner was, thus,called upon to put in the reply to the preliminary objections and in sequence of the order the petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 29. 6. 1994 to the preliminary objections.

(2.) IN the preliminary objections, the respondent has raised the following objections; - 1. That only one set of the election petition was served on the respondent. 2.That the annexures placed with the election petition are not legible. 3. That the petition was not in conformity with law as the verification made in support of Annexures 1 and 2 is not proper and the sources of these documents have not been disclosed. 4. That in the verification made in the election petition as well as on the Annexarures 1 and 2 the signatures of the petitioner do not appear on the verification meaning thereby that the annexures are not true and correct copies of the originals. 5. That the scrutiny of the nomination form was made after notice and information to the petitioner and no objection was raised at that time and now after the declaration of the result when the petitioner has lost the election, the election petition is not maintainable. 6.That the security has not been deposited as per the provisions of law.

(3.) TO the similar effect are the observations contained in other decision i. e. in the case of Mohan Raj (supra), referred to above.