PARESH NATH MITRA Vs. CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the election petition on the ground that the election -petition does not disclose any cause of action nor any fact has been stated for giving any right to the petitioner for filing this election - petition.

(2.) NIRBHAY Kumar Sahabadi is not the person whose name is appearing in the list of candidate as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the election -petition, whereas the name of only Nirbhay Kumar is appearing in the list. Nirbhay Kumar was very much qualified under Section 5(c) of the Representations of People Act, 1951 and this fact also finds support from the true copy of the electrol roll from Giridih Constituency issued on 5.7.2000 by the competent -authority. The petitioner has proceeded only assumption. The acceptance of the nomination paper of Nirbhay Kumar by the returning officer has not at all affected the result of the election. Therefore, the election -petition is fit to be rejected.

(3.) MR . Anil Kumar Sinha, senior counsel for the respondent submitted that Nirbhay Kumar was the real person who contested the election and the name of Nirbhay Kumar also finds mentioned in the voter list at serial No, 219 and there was no any objection raised against acceptance of nomination paper as well as no cause of action has been disclosed in the election -petition. It is further submitted that there is no voter list containing the name of Shri Nirbhay Kumar Sahabadi and, therefore, question of inclusion or withdrawal of the said name does not arise. The learned counsel also relied upon a case of Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1926 and case of Tak Chand v. Dile Ram, reported in 2001 SOL Case No. 057.