रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD. No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारतकोराजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 20]
नई दिल्ली, अगस्त 15 अगस्त 21 , 2004, शनिवार/श्रवण 24 श्रावण 30, 1926
No. 20] NEW DELHI , AUGUST 15- AUGUST 21 , 2004 , SATURDAY/SRAVANA 24-SRAVANA 30 , 1926 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड ( iii)
PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (iii)
केन्द्रीय अधिकारियों (संघ राज्य क्षेत्र प्रशासनों को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किये गये आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Orders and Notifications issued by Central Authorities Cotere Administrations of Union Territories)
भारत निर्वाचन आयोग
नई दिल्ली, 5 अगस्त, 2004
आ. अ. 48.-लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 ( 1951 का 43 ) की धारा 106 के अनुसारण में, निर्वाचन आयोग , 1999 की निर्वाचन अर्जी सं. 2 में, चण्डीगढ़ स्थित पंजाब और हरियाणा उच्च न्यायालय के तारीख 13-11-2003 के निर्णय को एतद्वारा प्रकाशित करता है (निर्णय इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है ) ।
[से. 82/हरि.-लो.स./2/99 ]
आदेश से ,
के० अजय कुमार, सचिव ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
New Delhi , the 5th August, 2004
O. N. 48 - Inpursuance of Section 106 of the Representation ofthe People Act, 1951 ( 43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission hereby publishes the Judgement of the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 13-11-2003 inElection Petition No. 2 of 1999 ,
2434 GI/ 2004
(121) 122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 21 , 2004/ SRAVANA 30, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3(iii)]
New Delhi , the 9th August, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Original Side
Election Petition No. 2 of 1999
O. N. 49. In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission hereby publishes the order dated the 5th March, 2004 ofthe Gauhati High Court in the Election PetitionNo. 4 of 1999 .
.... Petitioner.
Surender Singh son of Shri Bansi Lal, resident of Vijay Nagar, Hansi Raod , Bhiwani , Distt. Bhiwani .
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT Versus
(THEHIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM& ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Election Petition No. 4/1999 Ajay Singh Chautala son of Shri Om Parkash Chautala, H. No. 803 , Ward No. 3 , Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
..Respondent
.... Petitioner
Shri KanakeshwarNarzary.
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Kokrajhar & Returning Officer 5 Kokrajhar ( ST) H.P. Constituency P.O. Kokrajhar & Ors ..... Respondent
PRESENT
TheHon'ble Mr. Justice I.A. Ansari
Forthe Petitioner : Mr.P. K. Musahary, Election petition under Sections 80 , 80-A, 82 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 praying that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to declare the election in question of Shri Ajay Singh Chautala, the returned candidate , as void and may allow the present election petition with costs in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble High Court may also pass any other appropriate order or direction under the circumstances of this in favour of the election petitioner.
Mr. Manas Sarania, Advocates .
Dated the 13th November, 2003
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Saggar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Deka, Adv. Mr. K.P. Pathak, Mr. M. Nath . For Respdt. , No. 9 Mr. S. S. Dey, Mr. M. Singh (Respdt . (For Nos . 2 & 3) Mr. P. N. Choudhury (For Respdt . No. 4 & 5)G.A. , Assam.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sukhbir Singh , Advocate
ORDER
ORDER
Inresponse to the advertisement published interms ofthe directions given in this case on 24-11-2003 , none has appeared to contitnue this election application . In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this election petition stands closed .
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the elections are round the corner in some states in Decem- ber, 2003 and then the parliamantary elections are to take place. In such circumstances , the counsel for the petitioner prays that this petition may be dismissed for non prosecu- tion. I order accordingly.
This election petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions .
Sd/-
Sd/- November , 13 , 2003
I. A. ANSARI, Judge K.C. GUPTA, Judge [No. 82/HN-HP/2/99]
[No. 82/AS - HP (4/1999)/2004 ]
ByOrder,
ByOrder, K. AJAYA KUMAR, Secy.
K. AJAYA KUMAR, Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्त, 2004
आदेश
नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त, 2004
आ.अ. 49 -लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 ( 1951 का43 ) की धारा 106 के अनुसरण में, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग , 1999 की याचिका सं. 4 पर गुवाहाटी उच्च न्यायालय के 5 मार्च, 2004 के आदेश को इसके द्वारा प्रकाशित करता है । ( निर्णय इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है ) ।
[सं. 82/असम-लो.स./( 4/1999) /2004]
आदेश से,
आ. अ. 50.-यतः भारत निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि श्री ब्रह्मभट्ट सुनील कुमार कान्तीभाई, पो. लुनावाडा स्वामीनारायण नगर, वर्धारी रोड, लुनावाडा गुजरात , जो 121- शेहरा विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से 2002 में हुए गुजरात विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचनों में एक अभ्यर्थी थे, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 और उसके अधीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे है ;
के० अजय कुमार, सचिव 123 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 21, 2004/ श्रावण 30, 1926
[भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]
में11 -तालेड़गाओ विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से एक अभ्यर्थी श्री तलवार शंकर लक्ष्मण, म.नं. 944-3ए, टोंका कुमराभाट, पो.आ. कारानजालेम, गोवा, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 और उसके अधीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं;
और यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थी ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने के बाद भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण या स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत नहींकिया है । उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गए स्पष्टीकरण/अभ्यावेदन, यदि कोई है , पर विश्धार करने के बाद यह समाधान करता है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है;
और यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थी ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने के बाद भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण या स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत नहींकिया है । उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गए स्पष्टीकरण/अभ्यावेदन , यदिकोई है , पर विचार करने के बाद यह समाधान करता है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है;
अतः अब, उक्त अधिनियम के अनुच्छेद 10 - क के अनुसरण में, निर्वाचन आयोग एतएतद्वारा यह घोषणा करता है कि श्री ब्रह्मभट्ट सुनीलकुमार कान्तीभाई, इस आदेश की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए, संघ राज्य क्षेत्र अथवा राज्य की विधान सभा अथवा विधान परिषद् अथवा संसद के किसी भी सदन के सदस्य चुने जाने और होने के लिए, निरर्हित घोषित करता है ।
[सं. 76/गुज./2003/प.अनु, -1 ]
आदेश से,
एस० के० कौरा, सचिव
अतः अब, उक्त अधिनियम के अनुच्छेद 10 -क के अनुसरण में, निर्वाचन आयोग एतद्वारा यह घोषणा करता है कि श्री तलवार शंकर लक्ष्मण, म.न. 944-3ए, टोंका कुमराभाट, पो.आ. कारानजालेम, गोवा, कोसंसद के किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य की विधान सभा अथवा विधान परिषद् के सदस्य चुने जाने और होने के लिए इस आदेश की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए निरर्हित घोषित करता है । ORDER
[सं. 76/गोवा-वि 72002 ] New Delhi, the 9th August, 2004
देश से,
एस० के० कौरा, सचिव
ORDER
New Delhi , the 9th August, 2004
O.N. 50. Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that Shri Brahmbhatt Sunilkumar Kantibhai, At. Lunawada, Swaminarayan Nagar, Vardhari Road, Lunawada, Gujarat a contesting candidate at the General Election to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly held in 2002 from 121 -Shehra Assembly Constitutency has failed to lodge the account of his election expenses as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder,
O. N. 51. Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that Shri Talwar Shankar Laxman , H. No. 944-3A, Tonca, Cumrabhat, P.O. Caranzalem, Goa contesting candidate at the General Election to the Goa Legislative Assembly held in 2002 from the 11 -Taleigao Assembly Constitutencyhas failed to lodge the account ofhiselection expenses in manner as required by the Representattion of thePeopleAct, 1951 and the Rules made thereander;
And whereas, the said candidate has either not furnised any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice by the Election Commission or after considering the representation made by him, if any, the Election Commission satisfied that he has no good reason orjustification for the said failure;
And whereas, the said candidate has not furnised any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due noticeby the Election Commission and the Election Commission satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for the said failure;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares Shri Brahmbhatt Sunilkumar Kantibhai to be disqualified forbeing chosen as and for being a member of eitherHouse ofParliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State or Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this order.
[No. 76/GJ/2003/W.S. -I]
ByOrder,
S. K. KAURA , Secy.
आदेश
Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares Shri Talwar Shankar Laxman to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council ofaState or Union Territory for a period ofthree years from the date of this order.
नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्त, 2004
[No. 76/GOA-LA/2002 ]
ByOrder, आ. अ. 51. यतः भारत निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है किगोवाविधान सभा के लिए 2002 में हुए साधारण निर्वाचनों
S. K. KAURA, Secy.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 21 , 2004/SRAVANA 30, 1926
124
नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त , 2004
आ. अ. 52 लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 ( 1951 का43 ) की धारा 106 के अनुसरण में, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग, जबलपुर स्थित मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 21 जून, 2004 जिसमें मध्य प्रदेश राज्य से राज्य सभा के सदस्यों श्रीमती माया सिंह, श्री मोहम्मद अब्दुल्ला खान और श्री सुरेश पचौरी के निर्वाचन को प्रश्नगत करते हुए श्री राम प्रताप सिंह द्वारा , को निर्वाचन अर्जी संख्या 2002 का 3 में दाखिल को गई याचिका को इसके द्वारा प्रकाशित करता है । (निर्णय इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है ) ।
[सं. 82 /रा.स. - म.प्र./3/02/2004]
आदेश से,
ए० के ० मजुमदार, सचिव
ofthree members to the Council of State from the State of Madhya Pradesh . According to the programme for biennial election from Madhya Pradesh, last date for filing nomination was 14-3-2002 , for scrutiny of nomination, 15-3-2002, and for withdrawal of nomination, 18-3-2002. After the scrutiny, list ofvalid candidates was published in which the three respondents were included and since only three candidates were validly nominated, the respondents weredeclared elected unopposed . The petitioner contends that the nomination of the respondents ought to have been rejected as by not depositing a sum often thousand rupees as required under Section 34(1 ) (a) ofthe Representation of the People Act , 1951 , and by depositing only a sum of Rs . 5,000 instead, the respondents had failed to comply withthe mandatory requirements and since the respondents had not been duly nominated, their nomination deserved tobe rejected.
New Delhi , the 13th August, 2004
O. N. 52. In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission of India hereby publishes the order ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 21st June, 2004 in Election Petition No. 3 of2002 filed by Shri Ram Pratap Singh calling in question the election of Smt. Maya Singh, Shri Mohd. Obedulla Khan and Shri Suresh Pachori as the Members of the Council of States. from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JABALPUR
Election Petition No. 3 of 2002
RamPratap Singh
Vs.
Smt. Maya Singh and others .
Present : Hon'ble Shri S.K. Kulshrestha , Judge .
Shri Pranay Verma, for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate , with Shri Shekar Sharma for respondent No. 1
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey, for respondent No. 2
and 3.
: 6-4-2004
3. The respondents have filed separate returns . In her return, the respondent No. 1 has raised preliminary objectionwith regard to the maintainability of the petition in breach of the provisions of Section 81 ( 3 ) of the Representation of the People Act , 1951. It is stated that Annx. P/ 1 to P/7 form an integral part ofthe Election Petition but they have not been attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copy of the petition and on the annexures there is no attestation. It is further pointed out that main ground on which the sanctity of her election has been attacked is that provisions of Section 34 ( 1 ) (a) of the Representation ofPeople Act, 1951 have not been complied with by her but, on a plain reading, provisions of Section 34( 1)(b) alone were applicable and, therefore , the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It has further been averred that although there is no doubt that in election to Rajya Sabha only the provisions of Section 34( 1 ) (b) applied, the doubt is further removed by the specific provisions contained in Section 39 (2) ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 , which specifically exclude the applicability of the first limb of Section 34(1 ). It has further been stated that it has not even been averred that the result of the election has been materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination. Although respondents No. 2 & 3 have filed separate return , they too have resisted the case of the petitioner on the same presmises as the respondent No. 1 .
Date ofhearing
: 21-6-2004
Date of order
4. In view of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues were framed :-
ORDER
" 1 (a) Does the petition comply with the requirement of Section 81 (3 ) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ?
(b) If not, the effect .
By this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 , the petitioner who was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assem- bly from Nagodh Constituency No. 60 of Satna , has chal- lenged the election of the respondents to the Rajya Sabha (Council of States ) in the biennial election , 2002 .
2 (a) Whether, for nomination for election from the respective constituency each of the respondents was required to deposit a sum of Rs . 10,000/- under 2. The Election Commission of India issued notification No. 318/1/2002 ( 1 ) , dated 7-3-2002, for election भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 21 , 2004/ श्रावण 30, 1926
[भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]
Section 34 ( 1 ) (a) of the Representation of People Act?
(b) Ifyes , the effect of failure to deposit the sum so required."
5. Since no evidence was necessary as facts were admitted, the learned counsel for the parties were heard... The petitioner also submitted written synopsis which were.. taken on record.
6. The contentions issue between the parties being Issue No. 2, deal with the said issue first. For better appreciation ofthe controversy raised, it is first necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 34 of the Representation ofthePeopleAct, 1951 :-
"34. Deposits.-[ ( 1 ) Acandidate shall not be deemed tobe duly nominated for election from a constituency unless he deposits or causes to be deposited,- (a) in the case of an election from Parliamentary constituency, a sum of ten thousand rupees or where the candidate is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe , a sum of five thousand rupees ; and
(b) in the case of an election from an Assembly or Council constituency, a sum of five thousand rupees or where the candidate is a member ofa Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, a sum of two thousand five hundred rupees:
Provided that where a candidate has been nominated by more than one nomination paper for election in the same constituency, not more than one deposit shall be required of him under this sub- section.]
(2) Any sum required to be deposited under Sub- section ( 1 ) shall not be deemed to have been deposited under that sub -section unless at the time of delivery of the nomination paper [under sub- Section (1 ) or, as the case may be , Sub-section (1A) ofSection 33 ] the candidate has either deposited or caused to be deposited that sum with the returning officer incash or enclosed with the nominationpaper a receipt showing that the said sum has been deposited by him or on his behalf in the Reserve Bank of India or in a Government Treasury. " 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Rajya Sabha (Council of States) is a part of Parliament, it was necessary for each of the respondents to have deposited ten thousand rupees with their nomination form as none ofthem belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to a few provisions .
2434 G1/04-2
125 8. Article 79 of the Constitution of India refers to the Constitution ofParliament and provides that there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People . Article 80 ofthe Constitution refers to composition of the Council of States and Clause (4) provides that representatives of each State in the Council of States shall be elected by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the State in accordancewith the system of proportional representation bymeans of the single transferable vote.
9. Section 2 (f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 defines " Parliamentary Constituency " to mean a constituencyprovided [by law] for the purpose of elections to the House of the People . Thus , allusionto the Parliamentary Constituency in Section 34 (1 ) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is only to the Parliamentary Constituency meant for the purpose of election to the House of the People namely Lok Sabha which shows that the requirement of the deposit of ten thousand repees contained in Section 34( 1 )( a) is not applicable in respect of the nomination for Rajya Sabha (Council of States) . Section 39 (2 ) of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 specifically exchides the applicability of Section 34(1 ) (a) in the case of such elections and reads as under :-
"39. Nomination of candidates af other elections. (1) As soon as the notification calling upon the elected members or the members of the Legislative Assembly ofa State or the members of the electoral college of a [Union territory] to elect a member or members is issued, the Election Commission shall, bynotification in the Official Gazette , appoint (a) the last date for making nominationg which shall be the [seventh day] after the date of publication of the first- mentioned notification or, ifthat day is a public holiday, thenext succeeding day which is not a public holiday;
(b) the date for the scrutiny of nominations , which shall be [the day immediately following ] the last date for making nominations or, if that day is a public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday ;
(c) last date for the withdrawal of candidatures, which shall be [the second day] after the date forthe scrutiny of nominations or, ifthat day is apublic holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday ;
(d) the date or dates on which a poll shall, if necessary, be taken, which or the first of which shall be a date not earlier than the [PART II-SBC. 3 (iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 21 , 2004/ SRAVANA 30, 1926
126
seventh day after the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures; and
a copy of the electoral roll, or part of the electoral roll , in which the name of the candidate is included or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll . ] " (e) the date before which the election shall be completed.
(2) The provisions of Sections 31 to 38, excluding Sub - sections (2 ) and (5 ) of Section 33 and [clause (a ) of Sub -section (1 ) of Setion 34 ] , shall apply in relation to any such election as they apply in relation to an election in any constituency:
Provided that-
(a) any references in the said provisions to the electoral roll of the constituency shall unless the context otherwise requires, be construed , in the case ofan election by the members or the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the State, as references to the list of members ofelected members , as the case may be, of that Assembly maintained under Sub -section ( 1) of Section 152, and in the case of an election by the members of the electoral college ofa [Union territory ] , as references to the list of members ofsuchelectoral college maintained under Sub -section (2) ofthatSection ;
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ifitwere to be held that Section 34( 1 ) (a) is not applicable in the case ofelection to Rajya Sabha, the provisions would be rendered otiose. I am afraid, the argument ignores the fact that for Parliamentary constituency also the election takes place and, therefore , by excluding the applicability of Section 34( 1 )(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , in respect of the election covered by the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, the provision does not become redundant. As a matter of fact, even without the specific provision in Section 39 (2 ) excluding the applicability of Section 34(1 ) (a), since the provision of Section 34(1 )(a) applies to election from a Parliamentary Constituency which can only mean a constituency provided by law for the purpose of election to the House of the People as per Section2(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the said provision was not applicable in the case of election to Council of States . There is, thus , no substance in the petition.
11. I, therefore, hold that it was not necessary for any of the respondents to deposit a sum of ten thousand rupees with the nomination form under Section 34 ( 1 ) ( a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as the said provision was not applicable in their case.
12. Issues No. I :
[(aa) the reference in the opening paragraph of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 33 to " an elector of the constituency as proposer " shall be construed as a reference to " ten per cent of the elected members or ofthe members ofthe Legislative Assembly of a State or of the members ofthe electoral college of a Union territory, as the case may be, or ten members concerned, whichever is less, as proposers":
Provided that where as a result ofthe calculation ofthe percentage referred to in this clause, the number of members arrived at is a fraction and if the fraction so arrived at is more that one -half it shall be counted as one , and ifthe fraction so arrived at is less than one -half it shall be ignored; ]
Though the issue has been framed with regard to the non-compliance of Section 81 (3 ) of the Representaion of the People Act, 1951 but no arguments were advanced by any of the parties on the said issue . It has not been demonstrated how the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 81 (3 ) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 .
13. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs . The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner.
21-6-2004
[{ (ab) in the case of an election to the Legislative Council of a State by the members of the Legislative Assembly of that State , clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 36 shall be construed as including a reference to sub- clause (d) ofclause (3) of article 171 ; }
(S.K. Kulshrestha) Judge (b) any references in the said provisions of Section 30 shall be construed as references to Sub- section; ( 1 ) of this Section; and
[No. 82/CS-MP/3/02/2004]
ByOrder,
A.K. MAJUMDAR, Secy.
(c) at the time of presenting the nomination paper, the returning officer may rquire the personpresenting the same to produce either
Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi- 110054.