LAWS(RAJ)-1998-10-4

UDAI LAL JAIN Vs. BHEEM RAJ MEENA

Decided On October 27, 1998
UDAI LAL JAIN Appellant
V/S
BHEEM RAJ MEENA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Election Petition is posted today for disposal of substitution application moved under sub-section (3) of section 112 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951'). The applicant-petitioner was granted ten days' time on 15-10-98 to file rejoinder to the reply of the substitution application filed by the respondent opposing substitution application. In spite of time granted to file rejoinder, no rejoinder has been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-petitioner Mr. Govind Mathur and learned counsel Mr. Manish Singhvi appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention towards objections raised in the reply, which are not controverted by the applicant-petitioner by filing rejoinder. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that a bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 112 of the Act of 1951 clearly shows that an application for substitution can be made within a period of fourteen days from the date of publication as envisaged under sub-section (2) of the said Section. The application for substitution filed by applicant-petitioner Udai Lal Jain, nowhere disclosed that his application is filed within fourteen days of such publication as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act. In these circumstances, no cause of action accrued for filing the present substitution application. It is next contended that no certified copy of electoral roll has been filed by applicant-petitioner Udai Lal Jain in support of the fact that he is voter of Aspur Assembly Constituency of Rajasthan (136). It is condition precedent to establish that the applicant is a voter of Aspur Assembly Constituency (136) and in absence of such proof, the present substitution application of applicant-petitioner Udailal Jain is not maintainable. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that security for costs Rs. 2,000/- has not been deposited.