This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

REGD . No. DL ( N) 04/0007/ 2003-05

सत्यापन जयते

भारत राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 17]

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 10- जुलाई 16 , 2005 , शनिवार/ आषाढ़ 19- आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

No. 17]

NEW DELHI, JULY 10-JULY 16, 2005 , SATURDAY/ASADHA 19-ASADHA 25 , 1927 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 issuedby Central Authorities (other than the Administrations of Union Territories)

भारत निर्वाचन आयोग

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई, 2005

आ. अ. 77.-लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1950 ( 1950 का 43 ) की धारा 13 - क की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग झारखण्ड सरकार के परामर्श से एत‌द्वारा श्री ए. के. पांडेय , आई.ए.एस. के स्थान पर श्री ए. के. बसू, आई.ए.एस. (जे.एच. 1976 ) को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से आगामी आदेशों तक के लिए, झारखण्ड राज्य के मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी के रूप में नामित करता है ।

2. श्री ए. के. बसू, झारखण्ड सरकार के अधीन सभी पदभार या किसी कार्य के पदभारों को तत्काल सौंप देंगे या धारण करना समाप्त कर देंगे , जो कि वे ऐसा पदभार ग्रहण करने से पहले धारण कर रहे थे ।

3. श्री ए.के. बसू, मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी, झारखण्ड के पद पर कार्य करते हुए झारखण्ड सरकार के अधीन किसी भी प्रकार का कोई अतिरिक्त कार्यभार ग्रहण नहीं करेंगे सिवाय इसके कि उनको राज्य सचिवालय में निर्वाचन विभाग के प्रभारी , सरकार का सचिव पदाभिहित कियाजायेगा ।

[सं. 154/जे.एच./2005- का. प्रशासन ]

आदेश से,

स्टेन्डहोप युहलुंग, अवर सचिव 1994 GI/ 2005

(293) 294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ASADHA . 25 , 1927

[PART II-- SEC . 3 (iii ) ] ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

O. N. 77.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 13A of the Representation of the People Act , 1950 (43 of 1950 ) , the Election Commission of India in consultation with the Government of Jharkhand hereby nominates Shri A. K. Basu , I.A.S. (JH : 1976) as the Chief Electroal Officer for the State of Jharkhand with effect from the date he takes over charge and until further orders vice Shri A. K. Pandey, I. A.S.

2. Shri A. K. Basu shall cease to hold and hand over forthwith the charge of all or any charges of work under the Government of Jharkhand , which he may be holding before such assumption of office.

3. Shri A. K. Basu while functioning as the Chief Electoral Officer, Jharkhand shall not hold any additional charge whatsoever under the Government of Jharkhand except that he should be designated Secretary to the Government in charge of Election Department in the State Secretariat .

[No. 154/JH/2005 -P . Admn. ]

BvOrder.

STANDHOPE YUHLUNG . Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2005

आ. अ. 78.-लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1950 ( 1950 का 43 ) की धारा 13- क की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार के परामर्श से एतद्वारा श्री वी. एल. अग्रवाल, आई.ए.एस. ( सी.जी. 1988 ) को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से आगामी आदेशों तक के लिए, छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य के मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी के रूप में नामित करता है ।

2. श्री बी. एल. अग्रवाल, छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार के अधीन सभी पदभार या किसी कार्य के पदभारों को तत्काल सौंप देंगे या धारण करना समाप्त कर देंगे , जो कि वे ऐसा पदभार ग्रहण करने से पहले धारण कर रहे थे ।

3. श्री बी. एल. अग्रवाल, मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी , छत्तीसगढ़ के पद पर कार्य करते हुए छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार के अधीन किसी भी प्रकार काकोई अतिरिक्त कार्यभार ग्रहण नहीं करेंगे सिवाय इसके कि उनको राज्य सचिवालय में निर्वाचन विभाग के प्रभारी , सरकार का सचिव पदाभिहित कियाजायेगा ।

[सं. 154/सी.जी.एच./2005 -का. प्रशासन ]

आदेश से,

स्टेन्डहोप युहलुंग, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st July , 2005

O. N. 78. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 13A of the Representation of the People Act , 1950 (43 of 1950 ) , the Election Commission of India in consultation with the Governinent of Chhattisgarh hereby nominates Shri B. L. Agarwal , I.A.S. (CG : 1988) as the Chief Electroal Officer for the State of Chhattisgarh with effect from the date he takes over charge and until further orders.

2. Shri B. L. Agrawal shall cease to hold and hand over forthwith the charge of all or any charges of work under the Government of Chhattisgarh , which he may be holding before such assumption of office.

3. Shri B. L. Agrawal while functioning as the Chief Electroal Officer, Chhattisgarh shall not hold any additional charge whatsoever under the Government of Chhattisgarh except that he should be designated Secretary to the Government in charge of Election Department in the State Secretariat .

[No. 154/CGH/2005 - P. Admn.J

ByOrder

STANDHOPE YUHLUNG, Under Secy

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2005

आ. अ. 79.-यतः , भारत निर्वाचोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी में विनिर्दिष्ट महाराष्ट्र विधान सभा , 2004 के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट साधारण निश्विन के नए जो स्तम्भ (3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में हुआ है स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में उसके सामने 295 [भाग II- खंड 3 (iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी , लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 5 ) में यथा दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है ;

और, यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है या उनके द्वारा दिये गये अभ्यावेदनों पर, यदि कोई हो, विचार करने के पश्चात् निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है ;

अतः , अब , निर्वाचन आयोग उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को संसद के किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य/संघ 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 :

सारणी

क्र. सं. निर्वाचन का विवरण

निरर्हता का कारण

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम व पता

विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र कीक्रम सं. और नाम

(1)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

1 .

14-मनगांव

अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । महाराष्ट्र विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

श्री अशोक ताना जी गायकवाड़, स्थान-डोंगरोली, पोस्ट- मोरबा, तालुक-मनगांव, जिला- रायगढ़ , महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

22-खेतवाड़ी

श्री सैयद जफर मियां हबीब मियां, 17/21 , काजी स्ट्रीट, मरियम बिल्डिंग , प्रथम तल, कमरा नं. 15 , नल बाजार, मुम्बई-400 003

-वही-

47-चैम्बुर

श्री चेट्टी जयशंकर पूनमबालम, आर.सी. ब्लॉक नं. 18 , कमरा नं. 205, इनलक्स अस्पताल के पास, चैम्बुर कालोनी, मुम्बई-400 074

-वही-

श्री हरीशचन्द्र यादव, कमरा नं. 21 , जय भोले नगर, पाठक चाल, दीनक्यूआरी रोड, पंजरापोल , मुम्बई -400 088

-वही-

87- शिन्दखेड़ा

श्री तेलीं इकबाल बहादुर, कचहरी चौक, शिन्दखेडा, तहसील-शिन्दखेडा, जिला- धुले, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

श्री वरदार नाना महारू, स्थान-पोस्ट- शिन्दखेडा, तहसील- शिन्दखेडा, जिला- धुले, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

श्री दामोदर बाल्मिकरांव

-वही-

-सुखदेवराव, 55 आदर्श कालोनी, शिन्दखेडा, तहसील- शिन्दखेडा, जिला- धुले, महाराष्ट्र । 296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii )] (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

92- अमलनेर

श्री सोनार धनंजय बन्सीलाल, अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । महाराष्ट्र विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

" अभियान" देशमुख, वाडा अमलनेर, तहसील-अमलनेर, जिला-जलगांव , महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

डॉ. बी. एस. पाटिल ,

स्थान-रून्धाति, पोस्ट-मठगांव, तहसील-अमलनेर, जिला-जलगांव, महाराष्ट्र ।

-बही-

10.

-वही-

101- एदलाबाद

श्री सगिरशा रोशनशा, खिडकी मोहल्ला वारानगांव, तहसील- भुसावल, जिला-जलगांव, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

11.

-वही-

130- हिंगनघाट

श्रीकावडु पन्धारी उइके , स्थान-जामनी, पोस्ट-गोजी, तहसील-हिंगनघाट, जिला- वर्धा, महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

12.

--वही-

-वही-

श्री केसरजी बलिरामजी वानखेडे, स्थान-पोस्ट-कानगांव, तहसील-हिंगनघाट, जिला- वर्धा, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

13.

143- भण्डारा

-वही-

श्रीगोस्वामी अशोक जागेश्वर, साहिदवार्ड, तांगा गली , भण्डारा , महाराष्ट्र ।

14.

-वही-

श्रीवैद्य सुनील रामभाऊ , स्थान- पन्धराबोदी, पोस्ट- हरडोली, ( जांजड) , तालुक-मोहादी, जिला- भण्डारा , महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

15.

श्री शिन्डे सदाशिव साधुजी, स्थान-पोस्ट-शांती नगर, (ताकिया वार्ड ) , तालुक-जिला- भण्डारा -441 904, महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

144-अड्यार

16 .

-वहीं-

श्री बनैत रामचन्द्र आनन्दराव, स्थान-गौतम नगर, पौनी पोस्ट-तहसील-पौनी, जिला- भण्डारा , महाराष्ट्र। 297 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

(2)

(3)

(1)

"(4)

(5)

17 .

144-अडयार

अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । महाराष्ट्र विधान सभा के लिए सांधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

श्री रेवतकर राजेन्द्रभाऊ रामचन्द्र , स्थान-प‌द्मा वार्ड, पौनी पोस्ट-तहसील-पौनी, जिला-भण्डारा, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

18. -वही-

151-अरमोरी

श्री कृण्णाभाऊ कोहचडे, माता वार्ड देसाईगंज वाडसा, तहसील-वाडसा, जिला-गडचिरोली, महाराष्ट्र ।

19. -वही-

-वही-

154-राजुरा

श्री रामदास तुकारामजी चौधरी, स्थान पोस्ट- बालाजी वार्ड , दत्त मंदिर जावल, मंडी, वार्ड नं. 52, तालुक जिला- चन्द्रपुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही

20 . -वही-

158-चिमुर

श्री कावले राजकुमार मानिक, स्थान-गढपिपरी, पोस्ट-अम्बोली, तहसील-चिमुर, जिला-चन्द्रपुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

21 -वही-

श्री लक्ष्मणरामजी सोनवाने, स्थान-पोस्ट- दोमा, तहसील-चिमुर, जिला-चन्द्रपुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

-वहीं-

22. -वही-

श्री वाल्के सुखदेव कान्हुजी , स्थान पोस्ट- मुड़पार, तहसील-चिमुर, जिला-चन्द्रपुर, महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

172- भोकर

23. -वही-

श्री जाधव साईनाथ दत्ता , स्थान-पोस्ट-मातुल, तालुक- भोकर, जिला- नांदेड, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

24.

174- मुखेड

श्री कनेटकर मारोती विठ्ठलराव, "गावली-निवास" एल.आई.सी. कार्यालय के पास मालीनगर, अम्बाईजोगाई, स्थान-पोस्ट व तालुक- अम्बाईजोगाई जिला- बीड, महाराष्ट्र । 298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ ASADHA, 25. 1927

PART II-SEC. 3 ( iii) | (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

25.

सौ. राजश्री श्रीकृष्णा इंगले.

193- औरंगाबाद (पश्चिम)

एन-13, सी-13/3, सीआई डीसी ओ , हुडको कॉर्नर, हुरसुल रोड, औरंगाबाद, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

26.

-वही-

216-सोलापुर नगर (दक्षिण)

श्री बशीर अहमद, बशमिया शेख, 74-विजय लक्ष्मी नगर, न्यूपच पेठ, सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

27 .

-वही-

श्री यादगीर सैयद अहमद बुजुरगसब , 585 , अशोक चौक, सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

-वही-

28.

-वही-

217-सोलापुर नगर (उत्तर)

श्री राउत उल्हास रामचन्द्र, मकान नं. 153 उत्तर कस्बा, महात्मा गांधी रोड, सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र।

29.

-वही-

श्री सैयद एम. सादिक महीबूबसो, 554पूर्व मंगलवार पेठ, सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र।

30.

-वही-

218- उत्तर सोलापुर (अ.जा.)

श्री बन्सोडे आत्माराम बलराम, मकान नं . 267/159 , वडार गली , रविवार पेठ, सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

31.

-वही-

श्री क्षीरसागर शिवाजी कोंडिबा, स्थान-पकनी, तालुक- उत्तर सोलापुर, जिला-सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

32.

-वही-

220-मोहोल

श्री देवीदास चन्द्रभान चेन्डागे, -पोस्ट-यावाली , तालुक मोहोल. जिला-भोलाए महाराष्ट्र।

-वही-

-वहो-

33.

श्री गायकवाड रघुनाथ एकनाथ, स्थान-पोस्ट-वालुज. तालुक-मोहोल, "जला-सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र । [भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

299 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/ आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

34.

222-माधा

श्री देवकाटे दीपक भानुदास, अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । महाराष्ट्र विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

स्थान-पोस्ट-कुरडुवाडी, रेलवे कालोनी के पीछे, देवकाटे बस्ती, तालुक-माधा, जिला-सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

35. -तदैव-

224- संगोला

-तदैव-

श्री नवाले सोमनाथ कृण्णा, स्थान-पोस्ट-एकहाटपुर, तालुक-संगोला, जिला-सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र।

36. -तदैव-

- तदैव-

259-मान ( अ.जा. ) श्री अवाले नामदेव दादु, स्थान-पोस्ट- मुन्जावाडी, तालुक-फाल्टन, जिला-सतारा , महाराष्ट्र ।

37. -तदैव-

-तदैव-

श्री लोन्धे जनार्दन शंकर, स्थान-पोस्ट-बराड़, तालुक-फाल्टन, जिला-सतारा, महाराष्ट्र ।

-तदैव-

38. -तदैव-

-तदैव-

श्री शिंदे शंकरराव दादू, स्थान- धकानी, पोस्ट-दिवाड, तालुक-मान, जिला-सतारा , महाराष्ट्र ।

[सं. 76/महा.-वि.स./2004]

आदेश से,

के. आर. प्रसाद, सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July , 2005

O. N. 79. Whereas , the Election Commission of India is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified in column 4 oftie Table below at the General Election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly , 2004 specified in column 2 and be from the constituency specified in column 3 against his/her name has failed to lodge the account of his /her electxpenses as shown in column 5 of the said Table as required by the Representation of the People Act . 1951 and the Rule anade thereunder :

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act , the Election Commission hereby declares the persons specified in column 4 of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of 300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( iii )] Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a Sta Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this order .

TABLE

Sl . Particular of No. Election

Reasons for Disqualification

Name and Address of contesing candidate

S. No. and Name ofAssembly Constituency

14-Mangaon

Failed to lodge any account ofhis election expenses

Sh . Ashok Tanaji Gaikwad, At. -Dongroli , Post-Morba, Tal . -Mangaon , Distt. Raigad, Maharashtra

1. General Elections to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 2004

-do-

2. -do

22--Khetwadi

Sh . Sayad Jaffer Miyan, Habib Miyan , 17/21 , Kazi Street, Mariyam Eld . , 1stFloor, Room No. 15 , Null Bazar, Mumbai -400003

-do-

47-Chembur

3. -do

Sh . Chetty Jaishankar Poonambalam , R.C. Bk . No. 18. R. No. 205 . Near Inlaks Hospital , Chembur Colony, Mumbai -400 074

-do-

4. -do

Sh . Harishchandra Yadav . R. No. 21 , Jaybhole Nagar, Pathak Chawl , Deenquari Rd . , Panjrapole, Mumbai -400088

-do-

87- Shindkheda

5 -do

Sh . Teli Iqbal Bahadoor,, Kacheri Chouk , Shindkheda, Tal. -Shindkheda, Distt. -Dhule , Maharashtra

-do-

6. -do

Sh. Waddar Nana Maharu . At. Post-Shindkheda , Tal. -Shindkheda . Distt. -Dhule , Maharashtra

-do-

7. -do-

Sh. Damodar Valmikrao . Sukdeorao , 55 - Adarsh Colony . Shindkheda , Tal. - Shindkheda , Distt . - Dhule . Maharashtra

92-Amalner

8. -do-

-do-

Sh . Sonar Dhananjay Bansilal , Abhiyan Deshmukh , Wada Amalner. Tal. -Amalner, Distt. -Jalgaon . Maharashtra

-do-

9. -do-

Dr. B.S. Patil. At. Rundhati. Post. Mathgawan Tal. -Amalner , Distt. Jalgoan. Maharashtra 301 [भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

10-Edlabad

Failed to lodge any account ofhis election expenses

Sh . Sagirsha Roshansha, Khidki Mohalla, Varangaon, Tah. -Bhusawal , Distt . - Jalgaon, Maharashtra .

10. General Election to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 2004

-do-

11.

-do-

130-Hinganghat Sh.Kawdu Pandhari Uikey , At. -Jamni , Post -Goji , Talh -Hinganghat, Distt.-Wardha, Maharashtra .

-do-

12.

-do-

Sh. Kesarji Baliramji Wankhede, At. -Post-Kangaon , Tah. -Hinganghat, Distt. -Wardha, Maharashtra.

-do-

13.

-do-

143-Bhandara

Sh..Goswami Ashok , Jageshwar,, Sahidward Tanga Galli , Bhandara , Maharashtra .

-do-

14.

Sh. Vaidya Sunil Rambhau , At. -Pandharabodi ,, Post-Hardoli ( Zanzad) , Tq .-Mohadi , Distt. -Bhandara , Maharashtra .

-do-

15.

-do-

Sh . Shende Sadashio Sadhooji , At . Post- Shanti Nagar (TakiyaWard), Tq. -Distt. -Bhandara -441904 , Maharashtra.

-do-

16.

144-Adyar

Sh . BanaitRamchandra, Anandrao, At. -Gautam Nagar, Pauni , P.O. Tah. -Pauni , Distt. -Bhandara . Maharashtra .

-do-

17.

-do-

Sh . Rewatkar Rajendrabhau , Ramchandra At. -Padma Ward, Pauni , P.O. Tah. -Pauni , Distt. -Bhandara, Maharashtra .

-do-

151-Armori

18.

-do-

Sh .Krishnabhau Kohchade , Mata Ward Desaiganj Wadsa . Tah . -Wadsa . Distt. -Gadchiroli . Maharashtra .

-do-

19.

154 Rajura

-do-

Sh . Ramdas Tukaramji Choudhari . At. -Post-Balajee Ward. DattMandir Javal, Mandi , Ward No. 52, Tq. Distt . - Chandrapur , Maharashtra.

1994 G1/05-2 302

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005 /ASADHA, 25 , 1927

158 Chimur

Failed to lodge any account of his election expenses 20. General Election to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 2004

Sh.Kawale Rajkumar Manik , At-Gadpeepre , Post-Amboli , Tah- Chimur Distt. -Chandrapur, Maharashtra .

21.

-do-

Sh . Laxman Ramaji Sonwane , AtPost-Doma, Tah - Chimur , Distt. - Chandrapur, Maharashtra.

-do-

22.

Sh . Walke Sukhdeo Kanhuji , Tah-Chimur. AtPost-Murpar. Distt.-Chandrapur, Maharashtra .

-do-

23.

172-Bhokar

-do-

Sh. Jadhav Sainathe Datta , AtPost- Matul . Tq. -Bhokar, Distt . -Nanded , Maharashtra.

-do-

24.

-do-

174-Mukhed

Sh. Kanetkar Maroti Vithalrao , Gavli -Niwas`, Near L.I.C. Office Malinagar Ambajiogai . At Post Tq. - Ambaijogai . Distt. -Beed , Maharashtra .

-do-

25.

-do-

193 -Aurangabad (West)

Sh . Sow Rajeshri Shrikrishna Ingle . N- 13 , C- 13 /3 , CIDCO, HUDCO Comer, Hursul Road , Aurangabad . Maharashtra .

-do-

26.

-do-

216-Solapur City South

Sh . Bashir Ahmed Bashamiya Shaikh . 74-Vijaya Laxmi Nagar. New Pacch Peth . Solapur . Maharashtra .

-do-

27.

-do-

Sh . Yadgir Said Ahmed Bujuragasb . 585 , Ashok Chowk, Solapur , Maharashtra .

-do-

28.

-do-

M. Gandhi Road .

Sh . Raut Ulhas Ramchandra , H. No. 153 , North Kasba , Solapur , Maharashtra .

-do-

29.

-do-

30.

-do-

218-Nolapur (S.C.)

Sh. Sayyad M. Sadik. Mahiboobso . 554. East Mangalwar Peth. Solapur, Maharashtra . Sh . Bansode Atmaram Balram . H. No. 267/159, Vadar Galli . Raviwar Peth, Solapur,Maharashtra 303 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16 , 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

218-North Solapur

(S.C. )

Failed to lodge any account of his election expenses 31. General Elections to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 2004

Sh . Kshirsagar Shivaji Kondiba, A/T. - Pakni , Tal. - North Solapur, Distt.- Solapur. Maharashtra

32.

-do-

220-Mohol

-do-

Sh . Devidas Chandrabhan . Chendage. At. Post-Yawali . Tal.-Mohol. Distt. - Solapur. Maharashtra

33.

-do-

220- Mohol

Sh. Gaikwad Raghunath Eknath. At.Post-Waluj , Tal.-Mohol, Distt. -Solapur. Maharashtra

34.

-do-

222-Madha

-do-

Sh . Devkate Decpak Bhanudas , A/P. -Kurduwadi . Behind Railway Colony. Devkate Vasti . Tal . -Madha . Distt. -Solapur. Maharashtra

35.

-do-

224-Sangola

Sh . Navale Somanath Krishna, At. Post-Ekhatpur. Tal. -Sangola , Distt. -Solapur . Maharashtra

-do-

36.

-do-

259-Man ( S.C. )

Sh . Awale Namdeo Dadu, A/P-Munjawadi . Tal. -Phaltan , Distt. - Satara , Maharashtra

-do-

37.

-do-

Sh. Londhe Janardan Shankar , A/P -Barad , Tal . -Phaltan, Distt -Satara, Maharashtra

-do-

38.

-do-

Sh . Shinde Shankarrao Dadu , A/P -Dhakani , Post -Divad. Tal. -Man , Distt . - Satara , Maharashtra

[No. 76 /MT -LA/ 2004 ]

ByOrder.

K.R. PRASAD. Secv .

304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 16, 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ]

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2005

आ. अ. 80.-निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट छत्तीसगढ़ विधान सभाके साधारण निर्वाचन , 2003 के लिए जो स्तम्भ ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से हुआ है , स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में उसके सामने विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 5 ) में यथा दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा समय के अन्तर्गत दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है ;

और उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है या उनके द्वारा दिये गये अभ्यावेदनों पर, यदि कोई हो, विचार करने के पश्चात् निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है ;

अतः , अब, निर्वाचन आयोग उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को संसदके किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य/ संघ राज्य क्षेत्र 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 :

सारणी

निरर्हता का कारण क्र. सं. निर्वाचन का विवरण

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम व पता

विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र की क्रम सं. और नाम

45-धरसीवां

निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । छत्तीसगढ़ विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2003

केशव राम निषाद, ग्राम सड्डू, पो . तरपोगी , तह. तिल्दा, जिला- रायपुर छत्तीसगढ़

--वही-

-वही-

गजेन्द्र नायक,

मकान नं. 129 , ग्राम बरवंदा, वि.ख. धरसीवां, तह. व जिला रायुपर, छत्तीसगढ़

-वही-

नारद प्रसाद निषाद, ग्राम पठारीडीह, पो. उरला तह. व जिला रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़

54- बसना

-वही-

सुन्दर सिंह बरिहा, ग्राम कोड़िया, पो.- सुखीपाली थाना-पिथौरा , तहसील व जिला महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

-वही-

क्षमानिधिमिश्रा, 15/2गीतांजली नगर, रायपुर छत्तीसगढ़

-सही-

-वही-

बिहारी भईया, ग्राम- भजपुरी, पोस्ट भगतदेवरी व्हाया-सांकरा, जिला-महासमुंद

छत्तीसगढ़ 305 [भाग II- खंड 3 (iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

54-बसना

निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । 7. छत्तीसगढ़ विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2003

राकेश कुमार, ग्राम मेमरा, पोस्ट- मेमरा, थाना- पिथौरा , जिला महासमुंद छत्तीसगढ़

8. -वही-

-वही-

रमेश सिंह ठाकुर, ग्राम पतेरापाली, पो. वी.के . बाहरा , थाना- बागबाहरा , तह. व जिला-महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

-वही-

9. -वही-

-वही-

संतराम, ग्राम पो. मदरसी , व्हाया बागबाहरा तह. व जिला महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

-वही-

10. -वही-

डा. चंद्रकान्त शर्मा , बस स्टैंड साकिन मुनगासेर, विकासखण्ड- बागबाहरा , तह. व जिला- महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

11. -वही-

-वही-

रेखराम बाघ ( बकमावाले ) , ग्राम बकमा, पो. बकमा, थाना- बागबाहरा , छत्तीसगढ़

12. -वही-

-वही-

56- महासमुंद

फजल हुसैन पाशा, ग्राम सिनोधा, पो . पटेवा, तह. व जिला महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

13. -वही-

-वही-

सुरेश कुमार,

श्याम नगर, रायपुर ग्रामीण,

छत्तीसगढ़

14. -वही-

-वही-

इतवारी राम, बरोडाबाजार, पो . बरोडाबाजार, तहसील व जिला महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

-वही-

15. -वही-

-वही-

देव प्रसाद केलकर, ग्राम बरेकेल कला, पो . नरतोरा , थाना पिथोरा , तहसील व जिला महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

16. -वही-

-वही-

प्रवीण कुमारठाकुर, साकिन पुरानी बस्ती, वार्ड नं . 13, महासमुंद, तहसील व जिला महासमुंद, छत्तीसगढ़

[सं. 76/छ.ग. वि. स./2003 ]

आदेश से,

एस. के. कौरा, सचिव 306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ASADHA , 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii)]

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2005

O. N. 80. Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates specified in column (4) of the Table below at the General Election to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly , 2003 as specified in column (2) held from the constituency specified in column (3 ) against his name has failed to lodge account of his election expenses within the specified time and/ or in the manner required by the Representations of the People Act , 1951 and the Rule made thereunder as shown in column (5) of the said table:

And, whereas , the said candidates have not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice and the Election Commission is thus satisfied that they have 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 the person specified in column (4) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State /Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this Order .

TABLE

Name& Address of contesting

candidate

Sl. Particular of No. election

Reasonfor Disqualification S. No.& Name ofAssembly Constituency

45-Dharsiwa

Failure to lodge any account of election expenses .

1. General Election to Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly . 2003

Keshav Ram Nishad , Vill. Saddu, P.O.-Tarpongi , Tah . Tilda. Distt.-Raipur, Chhattisgarh .

-Do-

2. -Do-

Gajendra Naik. Qr. No. 129.

Vill . Barbanda . Block -Dharsiwa, Distt.-Raipur. Chhattisgarh .

3. -Do-

-Do-

Narad Prasad Nishad. Vill . -Patharidih.

P.O. -Urla, Tah./Distt.-Raipur , Chhattisgarh.

-Do-

54-Basna

4. -Do-

Sundar Singh Bariha. Vill . -Kaodiya.

Post-Sukhipali . Thana -Pithora , Distt. -Mahasamund .

-Do-

5. -Do-

-Do-

Chitisgarh . Kshamanidhi . Mishra . 15/2Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh .

-Do-

6. -Do-

-Do-

Bihari Bhaiya,

Village-Bhajpuri .

St-Bhagatdeori.

-Sankra.

Disit. Mahasamund . Chhatisgarh.

307 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

54-Basna

Failure to Lodge any account of election expenses .

7. General Election to Chhatisgarh Legislative Assembly -2003

Rakesh Kumar, Village-Memra, Post-Memra, Thana-Pithora , Distt . -Mahasamund , Chhattisgarh .

-do-

55-Khallari

8. -do-

Ramesh Singh Thakur, Village-Paterapali , Post-B . K. Bahra, Thana -Baghahra , Tahsil & District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .

-do-

9. -do-

Santram, Village& Post- Bhadrasi , Via-Bagbahra , Tahsil & District- Mahasamund . Chhattisgarh .

-do-

10. -do-

Dr. Chandrakant Sharma. Bus Stand . Village- Mungasher. Block -Bagbahra . Tahsil & District- Mahasamund . Chhattisgarh .

-do-

11. -do-

Rekh Ram Bagh , (Bakmawale). Village-Bakma . Post-Bakma . Thana -Bagbahra . District- Mahasamund . Chhattisgarh .

-do-

56 -Mahasamund

12. -do-

FazalHusasin . Pasha. Village-Sinodha . Post-Patewa. Tahsil &District- Mahasamund . Chhattisgah .

-do-

13. -do-

Suresh Kumar . ShyamNagar . RaipurVillage. Chhattisgarh.

-do-

14. ວ-

Itwari Ram. Barondabazar. Post-Barondabazar. Tahsil & District- Mahasamund . Chhattisgarh .

308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 16, 2005 / ASADIHA, 25. 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ] (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

56-Mahasamund

Faliure to lodge any account of election expences.

15. General election to Chhatisgarh Legislative Assembaly 2003

Dev Prasad Kelkar, Village-Barekel- Kala, Post-Nartora . Thana-Pithora , Tahsil & District- Mahasamund. Chhattisgarh .

-do-

16. -do-

PraveenKumar Thakur, Village-Purani Basti , Ward No. 13 , Mahasamund , Tahsil & District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .

[No. 76/CG - LA/2003 ] ByOrder. S. K. KAURA, Secy .

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2005

आ. अ. 81.-निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट राजस्थान विधान के साधारण निर्वाचन , 2003/उप निर्वाचन, 2004 के लिए जो स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से हुआ है, स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 5 ) में यथा- दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं;

और यतः उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए न तो कोई कारण और न ही स्पष्टीकरण दिया है अथवा उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत अभ्यावेदनों पर, यदि कोई हो , विचार करने के पश्चात् निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है ;

अतः , अब, निर्वाचन आयोग , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों संसद के सी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य/ संघ राज्य की विधान सभा अथवा विधान परिषद् के सदस्य चुने जाने और होने के लिए इस आ तारीख से तीन वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए निरहि करता है :-

सारणी

निरर्हता का कारण क्र. सं. निर्वाचन का विवरण

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम व पता

विधान सभाानवाच्चन क्षेत्र की क्रम सं . और नाम

02-नोहर

1 .

श्री महिपाल ,

लेखा दाखिल नहींकिया

विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्रके लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2003

ग्राम-रामगढ़ , तहसील-नोहर,

राजस्थान ।

199-मेड़ता

श्रीजालमसिंह,

लेखादाखिल नहींकिया

2. विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्रके लिए उप निर्वाचन, 2004

मु.पो. टालनपुर,

तहसील मेड़ता,

नागौर, राजस्थान ।

[सं. 76/राज./2003 ]

आदेश से,

के. आर. प्रसाद, सचिव 309 [भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July , 2005

O. N. 81. Whereas , the Election Commission of India is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified in column (4) of the Table below at the General Election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, held in 2003/Bye- Election 2004, specified in column (2 ) and held from the constituency specified in column (3 ) against his/her name has failed to lodge the account of his / her election expenses as shown in column ( 5 ) of the said Table as required by the Representation of the People Act , 1951 and the Rules made thereunder :

And, whereas , the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice by the Election Commission or after considering the representation made by them , if any , the Election Commission is satisfied that they have no good reason or justification for the said failure: baA Now, therefore , in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act , the Election Commission hereby declares the person specified in column (4) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being , a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State or Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this Order : -

TABLE

Reasons for Disqualification

Name & Address of contesing candidate

Particular of Election

Sl . No.

S.No. Name of Assembly Constituency

Account not

02-Nohar

Sh. Mahipal .

lodged

1. General Election to the Legislative Assembly , 2003

Vill. Ramgarh. Tahsil Nohar, Rajasthan.

199 -Merta

Account not lodged

2. Bye -Election to the Legislative Assembly , 2004

Sh. Jalam Singh . V/P Talanpur. Tehsil Merta . Nagaur . Rajasthan.

No 76/RJ. 2003]

ByOrder,

K.R.PRASAD. Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2005

आ. अ. 82.- यतः निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में लोक सभा 2002 के उप निर्वाचन के लिए जो नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में हुआ है स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में उसके सामने विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला अभ्यर्थी, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में यथा दर्शित विधि द्वारा अपेक्षिता पति से निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है;

और , यतः उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहींदिया है और निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है;

अतः , अब , निर्वाचन आयोग उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 -क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्ति को संसद् केकिसी 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: -

सारणी

निरहंता का कारण क्र. सं.

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी

का नाम व पता

संसदीय निर्वाचन क्षेत्र की क्र.सं. और नाम

श्रीजे. बी. राजू,

1. 9 - अमालापुरम ( अ.जा. )

लेखा दाखिल नहींकिया

सुपुत्र समाधानम, म. न. 262.

सालारजंग कालोनी,

हैदराबाद-500008 ,

आन्ध्र प्रदेश ।

[सं. 76 आ.प. ली.स. 2005(उप)] आदेशसे

तपस कुमार,सचिव 1994 01/05-3 310

[PART II-SEC . 3 (iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

ORDER

NewDelhi, the 7th July, 2005

O. N. 82. Whereas , the Election Commission is satisfied that the contesting candidate specified in column (3 ) of the Table below at the Bye - Elelction to the House of the People, 2002 held from the Constituency of Andhra Pradesh State as specified in the column (2 ) against his name has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses required by law as mentioned in column ( 4) of the said Table as required by the Representation of the People Act , 1951 and the Rules made thereunder ;

And , whereas , the said candidate has either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice to him and the Election Commission is 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 the person specified in column (3 ) ofthe Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being , a member of either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of 3 years from the date of this Order

TABLE

Name & Address of the contesing

candidate

Sl. No.

Reasons for disqualification

Parliamentary Constituency No. & Name ofPerd

1. 9 -Amalapuram ( SC)

Account not lodged

Sh. J. B. Raju, S/ o Samadhnam, H. No. 262 , Salarjung Colony, Hyderabad- 500008 Andhra Pradesh .

[No. 76/AP-HP/2005(Bye) ]

ByOrder,

TAPAS KUMAR, Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2005

आ. अ. 83.- यतः निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य से लोक सभा के लिए हुए साधारण निर्वाचन , 2004 में जो स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से हुआ है स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में उसके सामने निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा उसके अधीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 5 ) में यथा दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है;

और, यतः उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है और निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त असफलता के लिए उनके पास कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है;

अतः , अब , निर्वाचन आयोग उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को संसद के किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य/ संघ राज्य क्षेत्र के विधान सभा या 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: -

सारणी

निरर्हता का कारण क्र. सं. निर्वाचन का विवरण

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम और पता

लोक सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र कीक्रम सं. व नाम

5- सारंगढ़

निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । (अ.जा.)

1 . छत्तीसगढ़ से लोक सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

रोहित कुमार चौहान ,

चुराघांठा, व्हाया- डभरा,

जिला-जांजगीर चांपा,

छत्तीसगढ

311 [ भाग II- खंड 3( iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

5- सारंगढ़

निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । (अ.जा.)

2. छत्तीसगढ़ से लोक सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

डॉ. गोविन्द चौहान, ग्राम-रानीडीह, पो.आ. सरिया, तह. - सारंगढ़ , जिला- रायगढ़, छत्तीसगढ़

[ सं. 76/छग- लो.स ./2004 ]

आदेश से , एस. के. कौरा , सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2005

O. N. 83. Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified in column(4) of the Table below at the General Election to Lok Sabha, 2004 from the State of Chhattisgarh as specified in column ( 2) held from the Constituency specified column (3 ) against his name has failed to lodge any account of election expenses as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder as shown in column (5) of the said table;

And, whercas , the said candidates have not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice and the Election Commission is thus satisfied that they have 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 the person specified in column (4 ) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being , a member of either House of the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State/Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this order: -

TABLE

Sl. No.

Particular of election

Reasonfor Disqualification

Name & Address of

contesting candidate

S. No.Name of Parliamentary Constituency

5-Sarangarh (SC)

Failure to lodge any account of election expenses .

1. General Election to Lok Sabha , 2004 from Chhattisgarh

RohitKumar Chauhan . Churaghantha, Via-Dabhra . Distt. - Janjgir, Champa. Chhattisgarh .

2. -Do-

-Do-

Dr.Govind Chauhan , Village-Ranidilı,

Post- Saria, Tahsil -Sarangarh , Chhattisgarh .

[No. 76 /CG -HP/2004 ]

ByOrder.

S. K. KAURA . Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2005

आ. अ. 84.-यतः निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट तमिलनाडु राज्य से लोक सभा के साधारण निर्वाचन , 2004 के लिए जो स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में हुआ है स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में उसके सामने विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी , लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 तथा तद्भीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में यथा दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है;

और, यतः उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए या तो कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है और निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है ;

312

[PART II-SEC , 3 ( jji )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ ASADHA , 25 , 1927

अतः , अब, निर्वाचन आयोग उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को संसद 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 :-

सारणी

क्र. सं. संसदीय निर्वाचन क्षेत्र की

निरर्हता का कारण

क्रम सं. और नाम

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले

अभ्यर्थी का नाम और पता

1. 18-नीलगिरिस

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया ।

श्रीसेंथिलकुमार, वी, सुपुत्र ए. वेल्लिनगिरी, 11/74डी, अन्ना नगर , उत्तर साम्चेट्टीपालायम कोयम्बटूर, तमिलनाडु

2 -वही-

-वही-

श्रीशानमुगम, पी, सुपुत्र, करियान चेट्टीयार , 23, केमपज्जा गावडर लेन , कारामडाई, मेट्टुपालायम तालुक, कोयम्बटूर जिला, तमिलनाडु।

[सं. 76/त.ना.-लो.स./2004 ]

आदेश से,

तपस्र कुमार, सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July , 2005

O. N. 84. Whereas , the Election Commission is satisfied that cach of the contesting candidates specified in coleann (3 ) of the Table below at the General Election to the House of the People. 2004 held from the Constituencies of Tamil Nadu State as specified in column ( 2 ) against his/her name has failed to lodge an account of his /her election expenses as mentioned in column ( 4 ) of the said Table , as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder:

And, whereas , the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failures even after due notice to each of them and the Election Commission is satisfied that they have 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 the persons specified in column (3 ) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being. a member of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of this Order:

TABLE

Name& Address of contesting

candidate

S No. & Name of Parliamentary No. Constituency

Reason for disqualification

i 2

Sh. Senthilkunar . V.

Accounts not lodged 18-Nilgiris

S/ o A. Vellingiri . 11/74D . Anna Nagar . North Samychettipalayam , C. Coimbatore . Tamil Nadu .

2. -do-

-do-

Shri Shanmugam . P. S/ o . Kariyan Chettiyar. 23. Kempajja Gowder Lane . Karamadai . Mettupalayam Taluk . Coimbatore District . Tamil Nadu.

[No. 76 /TN -HP/20041

ByOrder.

TAPAS KUMAR. Secy .

[ भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 7 जुलाई , 2005

आ. अ. 85.-लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 ( 1951 का 43 ) की धारा 106 के अनुसरण में निर्वाचन आयोग 2004 की निर्वाचन अर्जी संख्या 3 में मद्रास उच्च्च न्यायालय के तारीख 14-6-2005 के आदेश को इसके द्वारा प्रकाशित करता है । [न्यायालय का निर्णय अंग्रेजी पाठ में छपा है । ]

[ संख्या 82 /त. ना. लो . स. /3/2004 ]

आदेश से,

तपस कुमार, सचिव New Delhi , the 7th July , 2005 O.N. 85. In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 ( 43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission hereby publishes the order of the High Court of Madras dated 14-6-2005 in Election Petition No. 3 of 2004 .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the 14th Day of June , 2005

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN

ELECTION PETITION NO . 3 OF 2004

AND ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO . 105 OF 2005 Election Petition

Suba . Karuppiah

DevaVayal , Periaya Karai Post .

Devakottai Taluk.

Petitioner Sivaganga District .

Vs.

1. P. Chidambaram,

80.Motilal . Kandanur Post . Karaikudi Taluk . Sivaganga District , Now residing at No 16 . Pycrofts , Garden Road , Office Haddows Road , Chennai -600006.

2. Navashad Alikhan No. 14 . Ottakuthar Street , Karaikudi . Sivaganga , District .

3. Venkatachalapathy .

No. 9-18 . Pavender Street, Nattarasankottai . Sivaganga District .

313

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 25, 1927

4. Irudayaraj , No. 1-325 , Kavery 2nd Street , Sri Nagar , lyyer Bunglow . Madurai.

5. Kayambu Kothankudi Vengalur Post . Devakototai Taluk . Sivanganga District .

6. Gunasekaran No. 63 , Muzhuveeran Street , Singampunari . Sivaganga District .

7. Shanmugam No. 40 , Somu Pillai Street . Karaikudi . Sivaganga District .

8. Chaidambaram No. 1/77, Thuvarampatti , Panagudi Post, Natarajapuram ( Via ) Sivaganga District

9. Chidambaram. Mariammankoil Street, Kovilur. Managiri Post. Sivaganga District

10. Chidambaram Kallamanakkudi . Puduvayal Post . Karaikudi Taluk. Sivaganga District .

11. Subramanian Mutharayar , M. Arimalam. Meenakshipuram Road . Arimalam Post . Thirumayam Taluk . Pudukottai District .

12. The Returning Officer /District Collector. Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency Sivaganga District .

13. The Election Commission of India Rep. by its Secretary Nirvachan Sadan , Ashoka Road .

NewDelhi - 110001 .

Respondents The Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased:

( a) to declare the election of the returned candidate . i.e. the 1st respondent herein as void and bad in law for improper acceptance of his nomination papers to contest from No. 33 Sivaganga Parliamentary constituency by the 12threspondent.

314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 16 , 2005 /ASADHA, 25 , 1927

(b) and without prejudiceto the above prayer,to declare the election of the returned candidate. Viz Ist respondent herein is null and void as vitiated by corrupt practices and set aside the same and consequently, declare that the next candidate who has polled the highest number of votes , ic . the petitioner herein , as returned elected .

APPLICATION NO . 105 OF 2005

P. Chidambaram, 80 , Motilal Street . Kandandur Post . Karaikudi Taluk , Sivaganaga District . Now residing at No. 16 , Pycrofts Garden Road , Office Haddows Road , Chennai -600006 .. Applicant

Vs.

1. Suba. Karuppiah Deva Vayal , Periaya Karai Post , Devakottai Taluk . Sivaganaga District.

2. Navashad Alikhan No. 14 , Ottakuthar Street . Karaikudi, Sivaganga , District.

3 Venkatachalapathy, No. 9-18 , Pavender Strect , Nattarasankottai , Sivaganga District.

4. Irudayaraj , No. 1-325 , Kavery 2nd Street , Sri Nagar , lyyer Bunglow, Madurai .

5. Kayambu Kothankudi Vengalur Post, Devakotatai Taluk , Sivanganga District .

6. Gunasekaran No. 63 , Muzhuveeran Street , Singampunari , Sivaganga District .

7. Shanmugam No. 40 , Somu Pillai Street , Karaikudi, Sivaganga District .

8. Chaidambaram No. 1/77 , Thuvarampatti , Panagudi Post, Natarajapuram (Via) Sivaganga District

[PART II- SEC . 3 (iii) ] 9. Chidambaram. Mariammankoil Street . Kovilur, Managiri Post. Sivaganga District .

10. Chidambaram Kallamanakkudi . Puduvayal Post . Karaikudi Taluk. Sivaganga District .

11. Subramanian Mutharayar , M. Arimalam. Meenakshipuram Road. Arimalam Post . Thirumayam Taluk . Pudukottai District .

12. The Returning Officer/District Collector. Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency Sivaganga District .

13. The Election Commission of India Rep . by its Secretary Nirvachan Sadan . Ashoka Road , New Delhi - 110001. Respondents Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take up this application and decide on the question of striking out the offending paragraphs viz... 8 ( b ). (c) & (d) 11 (5th, 8th, 9th , 10th , and 13th bullets ) : 12 (d) , ( e) . ( g. ). (h) . ( i ) , (j ), ( k) , ( 1) , ( m) , ( n) and ( o ) , and: 14 in the election petition No. 3 of 2004 and consequently dismiss the E.P 3/2004 for want of material facts , particulars . evidence cause of action , triable issues Under Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. Order 7 Rules 11 CPCR3 of High Court . Madras Election Petition 1967 , Sec. 81 ( 1 ) , 83 , 86 and 100 ( 1) ( d) ( i) ( ii) ofREPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1951 and consequently dismiss the Election Petition No. 3 of 2004 .

The above Original Application alongwith Election petition coming on for hearing before this court on various dates and finally on 29-4-2005 , and upon reading the judge's Summons , affidavit filed by the applicant and Counter affidavitfiled by the first respondent/Election Petitioner in O.A. No. 105 of 2005 and upon reading the Election Petition and documents filed thereto , and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. G. Masilamani , Senior Advocate for M/s. S. Silambannan and Gladys Daniel , counsel for the Applicant in O. A. No. 105 of 2005 and of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, counsel for the first respondent/Election Petitioner and of Mr. S. Nagarajan , counsel for the 11th respondent and of Mr. M. R. Raghavan , counsel for the respondents 12 and 13, and respondents 2 to 10 not appearing either in person or by advocates and having stood over for consideration till this day and coming on this day , in the presence of the advocates of the partics hereto , and this court made the following ORDER

Application under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules and Rule 3 of the Rules of the Madras High Court [ भाग II- खंड 3 (iii ) ]

Election Petitions 1967 read with Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII and Rule 11 C.P.C. and Sections 81 (1 ) , 83 , 86 and 100 (1) (d)(i) (ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 .

2. The first respondent in the Election Petition No. 3 of2004 has filed the above application praying for striking out the offending paragraphs in the Election Petition and consequently dismiss the Election Petition for want of material facts , particulars , evidence , cause of action and triable issues.

3. The first respondent in this application has filed the Election Petition No. 3 of 2004 under Sections 80 and 80(A) read with Sections 100( 1 ) (b) , 100 ( 1 ) (d) and 101 of the Representation of People Act , 1951 seeking for a declaration that the election of the Returned candidate/ Applicant herein as void and bad in law for improper acceptance of his nomination papers to contest from No. 33 , Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency by the 12th respondent and also for a declaration that the election of the Returned candidate is null and void as vitiated by corrupt practices and set aside the same and consequently to declare that the next candidate , who has polled the highest number of votes , namely , the first respondent herein , as returned elected .

4. For the sake of convenience , the petitioner in the Election Petition , who is the first respondent in this application , will be referred to as the ' Election Petitioner ' , while the applicant in this application, who is the first respondent in the Election Petition, will be referred to as the Returned Candidate ' in this Order.

5.According to the Election Petitioner, he contested from No. 33 , Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in the election conducted on 10-5-2004 and the returned candidate filed his nomination papers as the candidate oftheIndianNational Congress Party. The second respondent was the candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party and respondents 3 to 11 contested the election as independents . The 12th respondent was the Returning Officer and the 13th respondent isthe Election Commission of India .

6. The averments have been raised from para 5 onwards in the Election Petition and they are referred to in seriatim.

(a) Inparagraph No. 5, it is stated that the returned candidate was a Member of the Indian National Congress which is a recognised national political party and in 1996, he was expelled from that party, as hejoined the Tamil Manila Congress (Moopanar) , a recognised State Political Party and he contested the Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency thrice, namely, in 1996 , 1998 and 1999 as a candidate of the said Party and on account of difference of opinion during 2001 Assembly Elections , he was expelled from that Party and he founded the Congress Jananayaga Peravai and registered the same as a political party with the Election Commission of India

315

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

and it is found as an unrecognised registered Political Party in Sl . No. 204 of Table No. 3 in Tamilnadu Government Gazette (Extract) Part V. Sec. 4.

(b) In paragraph 6, it is stated that the returned candidate was a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of his nomination and his declaration as an Indian National Congress candidate is false and the election petitioner's agent sent a written representation on 21-4-2004 to the 13th respondent requesting for furnishing of details regarding the official position of the returned candidate in Congress Jananayaga Peravai as on 20-4-2004 and there was no reply from the 13th respondent.

(c) In paragraph 7, it is stated that as per law , a person could not be a member of more than one political party at a given point of time and while registering a political party, particulars regarding the names of its President, Secretary, Treasure and other office bearers should be furnished along with an affidavit duly signed by the President/General Secretary of the party and sworn , before a First Class Magistrate/Oath Commissioner/Notary Public to the effect that no member of the organization is a member of any other political party registered with the Commission and individual affidavits from at least 100 members of the party duly sworn to the effect that the said member is a registered Elector and is not a member of any other political party should also be furnished and after registration of the political party , any change in its name , head office , office bearers , address or in any other material matters shall be communicated to theElection Commission without delay.

(d) In paragraph 8, the election petitoner has averred that the returned candidate is either a founder leader or President or General Secretary of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai and if he had resigned and joined the Indian National Congress subsequently , that fact should have been informed to the 13th respondent and if it is so informed, the 13th respondent could have informed the same to the election petitioner on his request and since the 13threspondent has not replied to the request of the petitioner's election agent , it is presumed that there is no change as on 20-4-2004 in the particulars furnished by the Congress Jananayaga Peravai at the time of its registration .

(e) In paragraph 9 , it is further stated that during the scrutiny of nominations on 24-4-2004, the agent ofthe election petitoner and proposers raised serious objections before the 12th respondent seeking for rejection ofthe nomination of the returned candidate , but the objections came to be rejected by the 12th respondent in his proceedings dated 24-4-2004 and the agent of the election petitioner also sent a 316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii) ] petition dated 25-4-2004 to the 13th respondent requesting it not to publish the final list of candidates and stop the election till the disposal of the petition .

him before the Returning Officer . The returned candidate is not a member of the political party, which has given Forms A and B in his favour and he has not fulfilled the formalities that are required while submitting the nomination by an independent candidate and hence his nomination has to be rejected.

(f) In paragraph 10, it is averred that the 12th respondent rejected the objections without going into the root of the question and improperly accepted the nomination of the returned candidate as a valid one and the said acceptance is wrong, improper , illegal and against the spirit of the Constitution , the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , the Election Syınbols (Reservation and Allotment ) Order, 1968 , the Conduct of Election Rules , 1961 together with the periodical instructions issued by the 13th respondent.

(h) The election petitioner has further stated in paragraph 12 that the entire election process right from the begining to the announcement of election results is vitiated and materially affected the result ofthe election for the following reasons . When the returned candidate filed the nomination on 19-4-2004, he was not a member of the Indian National Congress and hence the declaration submitted by him was a false one and that vitiates the entire election process and it is not known as to when the returned candidate resigned from the primary membership of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and on re -joining enrolled himself as a member of the Indian National Congress . Neither he nor the 12th respondent disclosed the same to the election petitioner and the returned candidate has played a fraud on the Constitution of India and has failed to maintain the high traditions of democracy and purity of elections by misrepresenting that he is a member of the Indian National Congress and he no longer continues to be a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and the 13th respondent has failed in its duty to provide the requested information about the returned candidate to the petitioner's election agent and has not complied with the various provisions of law in this regard and the inproper acceptance of the returned candidate's nomination by the 12th respondent has materially affected the election results and the polling trend and the returned candidate continues to be a member of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai as evident from the various Press releases and advertisements given out by that party upon his victory in the election .

(i) In paragraph 13 , the election petitioner has once again reiterated the averment that by the improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate by the 12th respondent, the result of the election insofar as it is concerned with the returned candidate had been materially affected and there had beenviolations of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act . 1951 and the rules framed thereunder , the Election Symbols ( Reservation and Allotment) Order . 1968 and the Conduct of the Election Rules and in view of the illegalitics, the clection of the returned candid.c has to be declared as void and bad in law .

(g) The election petitioner has reproduced his objections made on his behalf to the 12th respondent on 24-4-2004 in verbatim in paragraph No. 11 and briefly they are thus . The returned candidate on the date of filing of nomination is the founder and leader ofthe registered unrecognized political party, namely , "Congress Jananayaga Peravai " and as per the Election Syınbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order , 1968, the political parties are classified as recognized or unrecognized and among the recognized political parties, there are two categories , namely , State Party and National Party and the symbols are allotted as prescribed therein and the reserved symbol is the recognition accorded by the Election Coinmission to the particular political party and it is neither a chattel owned by the party which could be bartered or sold or mortgaged or gifted nor is it available to the candidate not set up by the political party and Scliedule X of the Constitution of India speaks about a candidate nominated by a political party and if a person leaves the membership of a particular party, he would be disqualified from being a Member of the House and it is an admitted fact that the returned candidate is not a member of the Indian National Congress nor can he claim that he is a member of that party and it is learnt that he filed Forms A and B as if he is a candidate set up by the Indian National Congress headed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and a combined reading of the provisions of the Representation of People Act , the provisions of the Elcction Syınbols ( Reservation and Allotment ) Order, 1968 coupled with Schedule X ofthe Constitution of India would show that a candidate must be a member ofa political party to qualify himself to make use of Forms A and B so as to get the reserved symbol of the said political party whose Forms A and B he files and seeking the reserved symbol in the absence of his membership , would make his nomination not a valid one. The returned candidate in all probability must be deemed only an independent candidate and if it is so . he should be proposed by at least 10 voters , which is not the case with respect to the nomination filed by

(j) In paragraph 14 , the election petitioner has further averred that the returned candidate by making a false representation in his nomination, has indulged [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

in corrupt practice which though not per se come under the purvious of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 , by confusing the mind of electorate as being a Congressman .

(k) The election petitioner , in paragraph 15 of the petition, has mentioned various dates on which cause of action arose for filing of the election petition .

7. The present Original Application has been filed by the returned candidate seeking for striking out various offending paragraphs in the Election Petition by mentioning their numbers and consequently dismiss the Election Petition for want of material facts and triable issues. Hence, it is appropriate to mention the contents of the affidavitin the same manner as stated therein:

4. The only ground in the Election Petition is that the nomination of the returned candidate was ' improperly accepted " . Presumably the election petitioner seeks to invoke Section 100( 1 ) (d) ( i) of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 , hereinafter referred to as the " 1951 Act " . In order to invoke the said ground the election petitioner should prove the following:-

(a) that the nomination paper was improperly accepted;

(b) that the said improper acceptance has materially affected the rusult of the election ; and (c) that the material effect on the result of the election concerns the returned candidate .

5. The presentation of the nomination papers , scrutiny, acceptance and the publication of the list ofcontesting candidates are dealt with in Sections 32 to 39 of the 1951 Act . Section 32 prescribes the qualifications for a person to be nominated as a candidate. Such qualifications are contained in Article 84 of the Constitution of India and in Section 4 of the 1951 Act . Once a person who possesses the aforesaid qualifications is nominated as a candidate, the nomination paper shall be scrutinized (U/s . 36) and the list of validly accepted candidates shall be prepared [ U/ s . 36 (8 ) ] . Thereafter a list of contesting candidates shall be prepared ( U/ s 38) .

6. There is no averment anywhere in the Election Petition that any of the provisions of the Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act has been violated in the present case . There is no averment or pleading asto how the acceptance of the nomination of the applicant herein was in violation of any mandatory provision of the Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act; nor is there any averment or pleading as to how the acceptance of the nomination was ' improper ' . It is in the background of the absence of any relevant averment or pleading that the other averments in the Election Petition have to be examined and struck out if the said averments are irrelevant , immaterial , unnecessary , frivolous and/ or vexatious .

7461 / 05-4

317

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16, 2005/ आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

7. The averments in paragraph 8 , and in particular the averments in sub -paragraphs (b) , (c) and ( d) , are irrelevant and unnecessary to the issue raised in the Election Petition . There is no obligation on the part of a person/citizen to inform respondent No. 13 (Election Commission) when he hasjoined a political party . There is no obligation that respondent No. 13 should convey the said information to the election petitioner's agent . There is no presumption that since the election petitioner did not receive a reply , there was no change as on 20-4-2004 in the particulars furnished by the Congress Jananayaga Pervai . An enuqiry into these aspects would be wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the Election Petition . Such an enquiry would be vexatious . Hence , the averments in paragraph 8 (b ) to ( d) are liable to be struck out . "

8. Inparagraph 11 of the election petition, the election petitioner has reproduced in verbatim the objections made by him to respondent No. 12 (Returning Officer) . Although those objections were rejected by the Returning Officer , since the objections have been reproduced in the Election Petition and made part of the Election Petition, the applicant submits that marry of those averments are liable to be struck out on the ground that they are unnecessary , irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the Election Petition. Forinstance the 5th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words , " It is reliably learnt that .." and ending with the words " gift it to anybody or to abuse it " , is liable to be struck out . The said paragraph raises no disputed question for fact or issue of law . It simply reflects the opinion of the election petitioner . No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph . Hence , the whole of the said sub - paragraph is liable to be struck out.

9. Similarly, the 8th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words , " In the case of Thiru P. Chidambaram...... ' and ending with the words " cannot be allotted to other persons by the Returning Officer " , is liable to be struck out. The said paragraph does not raise any disputed question of fact or issue of law . It simply reflects the opinion of the election petitioner . No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph . Any enquiry into the averments in the said paragraph would be wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the Election Petition. Hence , the whole of the said sub- paragraph is liable to be struck out .

10. Similarly, the 9th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words , "As already mentioned . ..." and ending with the words " as a matter of adjustment or as a matter of will " , is liable to be struck out. The said paragraph does not raise any disputed question of fact or issue of law . It simply reflects the opinion and the presumptions of the election petitioner . It is not founded on any provision of the Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act . No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph. Any enquiry into the averments in the 318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ ASADHA, 25 , 1927

said paragraph would be wholly unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues raised in the Election Petition by the petitioner. Hence, the whole of the said sub -paragraph is liable to be struck out.

11. Similarly, the 10th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words , " If the above analogy is accepted ....... " and ending with the words " have not been followed by the said candidate" , is liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant . The said averments do not raise any disputed question of fact or issue of law. It is simply the argument based on the election petitioner's erroneous understanding of the legal position and his presumptions . No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph . Any enquiry into the avernments in the said paragraph would be wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the Election Petition.Hence, the whole of the said paragraph is liable to be struck out .

12. Similarly, the 13th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words , " Neither the Tenth Schedule ....... " and ending with the words " above political gimmicks " , are liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues raised in the Election Petition. The averments in the said paragraph are not founded on any provision of the Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act. They are simply the arguments based on the election petitioner's erroneous understanding of the legal position and his presumptions . The said averments do not raise any disputed question of fact or issue of law . No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph. Hence, the whole of the said sub -paragraph is liable to be struck out .

13. The averments in paragraph 12 , sub -paragraph (d) , (e) , ( g) , (i ) , (j ) , (k) and (1 ) , are liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues raised in the Election Petition. For the reasons stated already , there is no obligation to disclose any information to the election petitioner. These allegations have no foundation in law. There is no averment that any mandatory provision of law has been violated . No issue of fact or law can be framed on thebasis of the said averments in paragraph 12. Hence the aforesaid sub -paragraph (d) , ( e ) , (g ) , ( i ) , (j ) , (k) and ( 1 ) , are liable to be struck out .

14. The averments in paragraph 12, sub -paragraphs (h) and ( m) are liable to be struck out . The election petition . has made an irresponsible allegation of fraud without giving any particulars of the alleged fraud. Under OrderVI Rule 4 of the C.P.C. , when a party pleads fraud, particulars of the alleged fraud shall be stated in the pleadings . Except for abare allegation of fraud no particulars have been given. Even the allegation is based on a presumption ofthe election petitioner and not on the basis ofany facts . There can be no enuqiry into the irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegations made by the election petitioner in sub -paragraphs (h) and (m) . Any such enquiry into the averments in the said paragraph would be vexatious and wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ] the Election Petition . Hence , the whole of sub - paragraphs (h) and (m) are liable to be struck out .

15. It is submitted that the averments in sub- paragraph ( n) of paragraph 12 is liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues raised in the Election Petition. No reliance can be placed on any alleged press releases or advertisements . In any event , no connection has been alleged or established between the returned candidate (applicant herein ) and the said press releases and advertisements . No enquiry can be made into the said press releases and advertisements . No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments contained in sub -paragraph (n) . Hence , the whole of the said sub -paragraph ( n) is liable to be struck out .

16. It is submitted that the averments in sub- paragraph ( o ) of paragraph 12 is liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues raised in the ElectionPetition. The averments in the said sub -paragraph are not based on any facts or documents . The said averments donot raise any disputed question of fact or issue of law. No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis ofthe averments in the said paragraph . Hence , the whole of the said sub- paragraph ( 0) is liable to be struck out .

17. It is submitted that the averments in paragraph 14 of the Election Petition are liable to be struck out. Although there is a bad allegation of corrupt practice and a reference to Section 123 of the 1951 Act, there is no averment regarding any corrupt practice or the kind of corrupt practice or the provision of law which is attracted. Corrupt practices are defined in Section 123 of the 1951 Act and in as much as there is no specific allegation of any corruptpractice within the meaning of Section 123 of the 1951 Act, there can be no enquiry into the bare allegation. Since paragraph 14 of the Election Petition contains only a bare allegation , any enquiry into the averments in the said paragraph 14 would be wholly irrelevant, immaterial and vexatious . Hence , the whole of paragraph 14 is liable to be struck out .

18. Without prejudice to the above, it is respectfully submitted that the Election Petition itself is liable to be dismissed in limine for the reasons stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-statement filed by respondent No. 1 ( applicant herein) . Unless the Election Petition furnishes or constitutes a cause of action or ground in support of the Election Petition as required under law, the Election Petition itself is not maintainable . Since no ground of law in support ofthe Election Petition, as required under the 1951 Act , has been made out in the Election Petition , it is submitted that any enquiry into the Election Petition would be unnecessary , irrelevant and vexatious . Hence , the whole ofthe Election Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine . " 8. The election petitioner has filed the counter affidavit in the Original Application reiterating what he has stated in the Election Petition and has stated that the returned 319 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

candidate was member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on thedate of filing of nomination on 19-4-2004 and admittedly, he was a member of two political parties as per his claim and as such , the nomination submitted by him is vitiated and the same should not have been accepted by the 13th respondent herein and that would vitiate the entire election process . It is further stated in the counter that the allegations contained in the Election Petition have to be substantiated by the election petitioner only at the time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage as alleged by the applicant . It is also stated in the counter that whether the returned candidate continued to be the founder leader/President of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai and when he re -joined the Indian National Congress are all matters to be considered at the time oftrial and not at the interlocutory stage . According to the election petitioner , the material facts and material particulars , which areessential , would depend upon the cause of action pleaded by him and the evidence that may be led by him at the time of trial and the pleadings as set out in the Election Petition cannot be struck out or amended according to the whims and fancies of the returned candidate and it cannot be contended by the applicant that it is an abuse of process of Court . It is further stated in the counter that there is a clear distinction between the full particulars and the material facts and the Court cannot dissect pleadings into several parts and struck out a portion which does not disclose the cause ofaction as alleged by the applicant/ returned candidate and the contentionthat the election petitioner has not disclosed the source of materials to substantiate the plea of corrupt practices indulged by the returned candidate wouldbe pre- mature and the Court has to necessarily take into considerationthe pleadings in entirety and it cannot be read in isolation. The election petitioner has further stated in the counter that the returned candidate has to necessarily prove and establish that he was not a member of two political parties at the time of filing of his nomination before the 13th respondent and substantiate the fact as to when he resigned the primary membership of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and relinquished his position as the Founder leader/ President of that party and when he rejoined the Indian National Congress, and those matters have to be considered anddecided only at the time of trial . The prayer seeking for the rejection of the Election Petition under Order VII, Rule 11 (A) C.P.C. on the basis that it does not disclose the cause of action cannot be considered unless the evidence, both- oral and documentary , are let in by the parties to the proceedings and not otherwise . Lastly , it is stated in the counter that the present application filed by the returned candidate is nothing but a fraudulent and vexatious attempt made with a view to avoid a fair trial with regard to the various allegations levelled against him and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

not consitute a valid cause of action as required under law and no pleadings in the Election Petition, if proved , would vitiate the election process; it is for the election petitioner to satisfy the Court as to how the acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate was invalid and improper, since all official acts are deemed to have been done correctly and properly; the election petitioner has not produced any valid document to prove his imaginary allegation about the membership of the returned candidate inpolitical party or parties and further as to how and under what law it would invalidate his nomination; the burden is onthe election petitioner to prove as to how the election process is violated by referring the relevant provision of laws and producing the documentary evidence therefor; the election petitioner's mere assertion that the acceptance of the nomination is contrary to laws without specifically pointing out the relevant provisions of law is untenable , since such assertion is general , vague and untenable in law; no valid document has been filed by the election petitioner to show that the returned candidate was member ofthe Congress Jananayaga Peravai on 19-4-2004 , i.e. on the date of nomination ; the returned candidate is the best person to speak about his political affiliation and his statement and documents have been accepted by the Returning Officer; the election petitioner who alleges the contrary facts alone has to prove the allegations with documentary evidence , but has not done so ; the newspaper cuttings filed by the election petitioner are inadmissible in evidence and unreliable in an election petition , since there was no authenticity for the news mentioned therein ; the election petitioner is trying to convert the Election Petition into a Civil Suiť under C.P.C. in general , contrary to and without complying with the stringent provisions of Representation of People Act relating to Election Petition; the election petitioner is trying to make a roving enquiry which is impermissible in law; it is not correct to state that the allegations made in the Election Petition are to be tested only at the time of trial and even at the initial stage , the Court can strike out the paragraphs in the Election Petition which do not satisfy the legal requirement of the election law; the allegation that the returned candidate was originally a member of the Indian National Congress and later on , in Tamil Maanila Congress and Congress Jananayaga Peravai are general statements without material particulars and not germane to the gravamen of charge in the Election Petition; the allegation that the returned candidate continued to be the founder leader of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of his nomination is denied ; the returned candidate has filed this application only on the basis that there is no cause of action for the Election Petition and doesnot file to delay the fair trial as alleged by the election petitioner; the allegation of the election petitioner that the returned candidate was a member of the two political parties onthe date of filing of his nomination is nothing but per se scandalous , fraudulent and vexatious and it is not supported by material particulars and evidence; it is not 9. The returned candidate has filed a detailed reply denying the averments in the counter affidavit by stating that the allegations contained in the Election Petition do 320

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ ASADHA, 25 , 1927

correct to state that there is a clear distinction between the full particulars and material facts and the Court cannot dissect the pleadings into several parts and to find out which part does not disclose the cause of action; the election petition cannot proceed to trial on the basis of newspaper reports , presumption , assumption only since the same is not permissible in law ; the election petitioner hasnot disclosed any material source , facts , particulars , documents or evidence to substantiate the plea of corrupt practices and hence the same has to be struck out; the averments in the Election Petition would not lead to any conclusion , much less to irresistible conclusion of valid cause of action even to try it and the returned candidate has placed valid material facts, circumstances and law for the rejection of the Election Petition , since after striking out the untenable portions in the Election Petition , there shall remain no relevant portion to constitute cause of action and triable issues in the Election Petition ; the election petitioner cannot throw the burden of disproving his suspicion on the basis of assumption and presumption on the shoulder of the returned candidate and the averments made in the counter affidavit have to be rejected in limine; the election petitioner has attempted to seek trial in anElection Petition in respect of matters which are not triable; the election law has to be followed strictly, consequently pleadings and averments in an Election Petition which are not in consonance with the requirement of election law have to be struck out at the initial stage itself, so that the trial in the Election Petition is not clouded and miscarried otherwise than in compliance with , as requiredby law.

10. The first respondent alone has filed his counter in this application and the learned counsel for respondents 11 to 13 have made an endorsement that they are not filing any counter to the application. All other respondents are already set ex parte in the main Election Petition.

corrupt practice mentioned in the election petition , but there is no specific allegation of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act and there can be no enquiry into the bald allegation ; that the election petitioner has not filed any valid document to show that the returned candidate was a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on 19-4-2004 i.e. , on the date of nomination and the returned candidate is the best person to speak about his political affiliatica and his document and statements have been accepted by the Returning Officer and the authorised person of the Congress Party has certified about the returned candidate and has given letter of requisition, which was accepted by the Returning Officer and the election petitioner is trying to shift the burden of proof on the shoulder of the returned candidate, which is impermissible in law and the newspaper cuttings filed by the election petitioner are inadmissible evidence and there is no authenticity for the news mentioned therein and the election petitioner is trying to make a roving enquiry, which isnot permissible in law and the election petitioner is trying to convert the Election Petition into a Civil Suit under CPC in general , contrary to and without complying with the stringent provisions of the Representation of People Act relating to Election Petition ; that the allegation that the returned candidate is continued to be a Founder Leader of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of nomination is not correct and the election petitioner has not disclosed his source of information and the material particulars with regard to the same; that the allegation of the election petitioner that the returned candidate was member of two political parties on the date of filing his nomination, is nothing but per se scandalous , fraudulent, vexatious and unsupported by material facts and particulars or even list evidence as required in the election law ; that the election petition cannot proceed to trial on the basis of newspaper reports , presumption and assumption only and the absence ofmaterial facts and material particulars and documentary evidence will suffice to strike out the unsupported averments in the election petition which are vexatious , irrelevant and immaterial and the election petitioner has not referred to any provisions of law in the election petition, disclsoing any disqualification flowing from the alleged membership of political parties even ifproved and the non- disclosure of the relevant provision of law is fatal to the maintainability of the election petition; that the election petition has to be dismissed in limine for want of material facts , cause of action and triable issues and that the requirement of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act is mandatory and the election petitioner has not satisified the said requirement .

12. In support of the contention that the Representation of People Act is a self contained enactment and the election petition is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right , but only a statutory right, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/ returned candidate relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court:

11. Mr. G. Masilamani , learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/returned candidate contended that the right conferred in the matter of election is not a common law right and it is only a statutory right; that the only ground alleged in the election petition is that the nomination of the returned candidate was improperly accepted invoking the provision under Section 100 ( 1 ) (d) ( i) of the Representation of People Act and there is no averment or pleading as to how the acceptance of the nomination was in violation of any mandatory provision of the Constitution of India or of the Representation ofPeople Act, 1951 and as to how the acceptance of the nomination was improper and has materially affected the result of the election and also insofar as it concerned the returned candidate and hence the said averment is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be struck out; that the first respondent/election petitioner has made irresponsible allegation of fraud without giving any particulars of the alleged fraud and any enquiry into it would be vexatious , irrelevant and immaterial ; that there is a bald allegation of [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( iii) ]

"( 1 ) N. P. PONNUSWAMI v . RETURNING OFFICER, NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY, NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST. , AND OTHERS (AIR 1952 SUPREME COURT 64) .

(2) DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL v . SHRI RAJIV GANDHI ( AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1577).

(3) C. NARAYANASWAMY v . C. K. JAFFER SHARIEF AND OTHERS ( 1994 Supp (3 ) Supreme Court cases 170) .

(4) JAIPAL SINGH v . SMT . SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER ( AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2066 : (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522) . "

13.The following decisions of the Apex Court were also relied on by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant/ returned candidate for the proposition that theportions ofthe election petition which do notdisclose any cause of action are liable to be struck off under Order VI . Rule 16 CPC and the Court is empowered to strike out the pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous , frivolous orvexatious and after striking out the pleadings if there is no triable issue remains to be considered , the court is empowered to reject the election petition under Order VI, Rule 11 CPC and there should be no vagueness in the allegation of corrupt practice and there should be a f and complete statement of material facts in the allegations ofcorruptpractice and the pleadings relating to it have to be scrutinized in a strict manner and to declare the election to be void under Section 100 ( 1) (d ) of the Representation of People Act, the election petitioner has to plead and show that the result of the election insofar as it concerned to the returned candidate has been materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of any nomination or by the alleged non - compliance with the provisions of the Act or ofthe Rules .

"( 1 ) VASHIST NARAIN SHARMA v . DEV CHANDRA AND OTHERS (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 513) .

(2) DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL v. SHRI RAJIV GANDHI (AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1577) .

.(3) LALIT KISHORE CHATURVEDI v . JAGDISH PRASAD THADA AND OTHERS ( AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1731 ) .

(4) KRIPA SHANKAR CHATTERJI v. GURUDAS CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS ( AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 2152) .

(5) JAGJIT SINGH v . DHARAMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ( 1995 Supp ( 1 ) Supreme Court Cases 422) .

(6) L.R. SHIVARAMAGOWDA AND OTHERS v . T.M. CHANDRASHEKHAR (DEAD BY LRS AND OTHERS ( 19991 SCC666 : AIR 1999 SC 252).

321

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

(7) UMA BALLAV RATH ( SMT) v . MAHESHWAR MOHANTY ( SMT) AND OTHERS ( 1999 3 Supreme Court Cases 357) .

(8) SANTOSH YADAV v . NARENDER SINGH (AIR2002SUPREME COURT 241) .

(9) SALEEM BHAI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 759) .

(10) JAIPAL SINGH v. SMT . SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER (AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2066 : (2004) 4 Supreme Cases 522) ,"

14. The following decisions of the Apex Court were further relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/ returned candidate for the proposition that a newspaper report is only a hearsay secondary evidence unless proved by evidence aliunde :

".1 SAMANT N. BALAKRISHNA , etc. , v . GEORGE FERNANDEZ AND OTHERS etc. , (AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 1201 ) .

2. LAXMI RAJ SHETTY AND ANOTHER v . STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( 1988 Supreme Court Cases ( Cri) 633).

3. S.A. KHAN v . CH . BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS ((1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 151. ) " 15. Per contra, Mr. Thaigarajan , learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ election petitioner contended that the application is not maintainable in law and on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine ; that the election of the applicant/returned candidate has to be declared as void and bad in law for the improper acceptance ofhis nomination , overruling the objections raised by the firstrespondent/election petitioner before the Returning Office, that the returned candidate was a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of nomination on 19-4-2004 and he was a member of two political parties and as such the very nomination submitted byhim is vitiated and should not have been accepted; that the returned candidate did not possess the requisite qualification since he was the founder leader and primary member of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai at the time of filing ofhis nomination and the election petitioner has set out the facts and circumstances as to how there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the law and he allegations can be substantiated only at the time of trail by letting in evidence and this stage , it cannot be said that he hasnot disclosed any cause of action or abused the process of court as mentioned under Order VII , Rule 11 ( a) CPC; that the applicant/ returned candidate had originally resigned from the Indian National Congress and joined TamilManila Congress, a regional outfit and it is a mystery as to when he rejoined the Indian National Congress and he had not furnished any information about that the time of filing of his nomination as required by law and those matters have to be considered at the time of trial only; that the issue before the Court is whether the returned candidate 322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ ASADHA, 25 , 1927

was a member of two political parties at the time of filing of his nomination before the Returning Officer and whether the sequence of events set out in the election petition would vitiate the election process ; that the particulars furnished in the election petition would amount to material facts and the election petitioner would demonstrate the cause of action at the time of trial ; that the pleadings as set out in the election petition cannot be struck out as sought for unless the applicant makes out that it is an abuse of process of Court and process of law; that there is distinction between the full particulars and the material facts and the court cannot dissect pleadings into several parts and struck out a portion which does not disclose of action as alleged by the applicant ; that the averment that the election petitioner has not disclosed the source of material to substantiate the plea of corrupt practice, at this stage , would be premature and the application has been filed only to mislead the Court with regard to various provisions more particularly, Sections 83 ( 1 ) ( a) and 86 of the Representation of People Act ; that the applicant/ returned candidate has not set out in detail as to how the allegations made against him are unnecessary , scandalous and frivolous or vexatious and abuse of process of Court and the plea for rejection of the election petition on the basis that it does not disclose the cause of action , is liable to be rejected and the pleadings have to be tested only at the time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage .

16. In support of his contentions , the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on various decisions of the Apex Court . In fact , some of the decisions were relied on by both sides for the propositions of law laid down therein.

17. The learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court with regard to the distinction between the material facts and the material particulars and the power of court to permit the election petitioner to furnish material particulars at a later stage and the requirement of law pertaining to the allegation of corrupt practice:

" 1 . UDHAV SINGH v . MADHAV RAO SCINDIA (AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744 ).

2. ROOP LAL SATHI V. NACHHATTAR SINGH (AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1559 ) .

3. Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi ( 1986 ( Supp) Supreme Court Cases 315 ) .

4. F. A. Sapa and Others v . Singora and Others (( 1991 ) 3 Supreme Court Cases 375) .

5. D. RAMACHANDRAN v. R. V. Janakiraman and Others (AIR 1999 Supreme Courts 1128).

6. V. S. Achuthanandan v . P. J. Francis and another (AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2044) .

7. H.D. Revanna v . G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others ( ( 1999 ) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217) .

8. Mahendra Pal v . Ram Dass Malanger and others ((2000 ) 1 Supreme Court Cases 261 ) .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ] 9. Mr. V. Narayanaswamy v. Mr. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu ( 2000 ( 1 ) Supreme Court Cases290) .

10. Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheshwar Rao ((2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 46 ) .

11. Ajay Kumar Poeia v. Shyam and others (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429 ) .

12. Borgaram Deuri v . Premodhar Bora and another (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 227) .

13. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v . Assistant Charity Commissioner and others ( ( 2004 ) 3 Supreme Court Cases 137) .

14. Jaipal Singh v . Smt . Sumitra Mahajan and another (AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2066:(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522) .

15. Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and others ( ( 2004 )6 Supreme Court Cases 331 ) .

16. Mahadeorao Sokaji Shivankar v . Ramaratan Bapu and others ( (2004 ) 7 Supreme Court Cases 181).

17. Rupadhar Pujari v. Gangadhar Bhatra (2004)7 Supreme Court Cases 654) .

Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and another ( ( 2004 ) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512). 18.

19. Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar v. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and others ( (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 188 ) . "

18. The learned counsel for the first respondent cited some more decisions with regard to the dispute as to the symbol between two parties arising under Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment ) Order and as such they are not relevant to this application and hence they are not mentioned .

19. The law relating to election petition filed under the Representation of People Act , 1951 is well settled and the observations of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in some of the landmark Judgments are extracted below:

Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v . Shri Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1577) . " " 1.

"Para 8. The first question which falls for our determination is whether the High Court had Jurisdiction to strike out pleading under O. VI , R. 16 , C.P.C. and to reject the election petition under O. VII , R. 11 of the Code at the preliminary stage even though no written statement had been filed by the respondent . Section 80 provides that no election is to be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions ofPart VI of the Act before the High Court . Section 81 provides that an election petition 323 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

may be presented on one or more of the

to reject the election petition under O. VI , R. grounds specified in S. 100 by an elector or by

a candidates questioning the election of a

returned candidate . Section 83 provides that

an election petition shall contain a concise

statement of material facts on which the

petitioner relies and he shall set forth full

particulars of any corrupt practice that he may

allege including full statement of the names of

the parties alleged to have committed such

corruptpractice and the date and place of the

commission of each such practice . Section 86

confers power on the High Court to dismiss an

election petition which does not comply with

the provisions of Ss. 81 and 82 or S.117 . Section

87 deals with procedure to be followed inthe

trial of the election petition and it lays down

that subject to the provisions of the Act and

any rules made thereunder , every election

petition shall be tried by the High Court as

nearly as may be in accordance with the

procedure applicable to the trial of suits under

the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. Since

provisions of Civil Procedure Code apply to

thetrial of an election petition, O. VI , R. 16 and

O.VI , R. 17 are applicable to the proceedings

relating to the trial of an election petition

subject to the provisions of the Act . On a

combined reading of Ss.81 , 83 , 86 and 87 of the

Act, itisapparent that those paras of a petition

which do not disclose any cause of action, are

liable to be struck off under O. VI , R. 16 , as the

Court is empowered at any stageage of the

proceedings to stricke out or delete pleading

which is unnecessary , scandalous , frivolous

or vexatious or which may tendto prejudice,

embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition

or suit. It is the duty of the court to examine

theplaint and it need not wait till the defendant

fileswritten statement and points, out the

defects. Ifthe court on examination of the plaint

or the election petition finds that it does not

disclose any cause of action it would be

justified in striking out the pleadings. Order

VI , Rule 16 itself empowers the Court to strike

out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings

which may even be before the filing of the

written statement by the respondent or

commencement of the trial. If the Court is

satisfied that the election petition does not

make out any cause of action and that the trial

would prejudice , embarrass and delay the

proceedings , the court need not wait for the

filing of the written statement instead it can

proceed to hear the preliminary objections and

strike out the pleadings . If after striking out

Para 14. Before we consider various paras of the election petition to determine the correctness ofthe High Court order we think it necessary to bear in mind the nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the right to dispute election and the trial of the election petition. Right to contest election or toquestion the election by means of an election petition is neither common law nor fundamental right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions of the Representatinon of the People Act, 1951. There is no fundamental or common law right in these matters . This is well settled by catena of decisions of this Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. ReturningOfficer 1952 SCR 218 : (AIR 1952 SC 14), Jagan Nath V. Jaswant Singh AIR 1954 SC 210, Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 3 SC 318 : (AIR 1982 SC 983) . These decisions have setted the legal position that outside the statutory provisions there is no right to dispute an election. The Representation of the People Act isa complete and self contained Code within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found . The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the extent as permissible by S.87 of the Act . The scheme of the Act as noticed earlier would show that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided by S.80 on the grounds as contained in S.100 of the Act . Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by S. 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts , details and particulars of each corrupt practicewith exactitude . If the election petition fails to make out a ground under S. 100 of the Act it must fail at the threshould. Allegations ofcorrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges , it is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet. Ifthe allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action . The emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and roving inquiry . It is therefore necessary for the Court to scrutinize the pleadings relating to corrupt practice in a the pleadings the court finds that not triable

strict manner .

issues remain to be considered, it has power 324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 16 , 2005 / ASADHA, 25 , 1927

"Para 30. Then aforesaid allegations do not amount to any corrupt practice as contemplated by S. 123 of the Act. At best these allegations raise a grievance that the presiding officers did not perform their duties in accordance with law in as much as they failed in their duty to remove the posters and other propaganda material from the polling booth and the hand which was the election symbol of Rajiv Gandhi and the same was displayed within 100 meters of the polling booth in violation of the rules . The allegations do not make out any charge of corrupt practise . If at all the allegations could be a ground under S. 100 ( 1) (d) ( iv) of the Act for setting aside election on the ground of it being materially affected but no such plea was raised. Para 54 to 58 do not deal with any corrupt practice."

2. L.R. SHIVARAMAGOWDA AND OTHERS v . T.M. CHANDRASHEKAR (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS [ ( 1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 666 ] .

"Para 10. That apart, it is reightly pointed out by the appellant's counsel that in order to declare an election to be void under Section 100( 1 ) ( d) ( iv ) , it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected by the alleged non- compliance with the provisons of the Act or of the Rules . Wehave already extracted para 39 of the election petition which is the only relevant paragraph . One will search in vain for an averment in that paragraph that the appellant spent for the election an amount exceeding the prescribed limit or that the result of the election was materially affected by the failure of the appellant to give true and correct accounts of expenditure . In the absence of either averment, it was not open to the appellant to adduce evidence to that effect . It cannot be denied that the two matters referred to above are material facts which ought to find a place in an election petition if the election is sought to be set aside on the basis of such facts .

Para 11. This Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of pleadings in an election petition and pointed out the difference between " material facts" and "material particulars " . While the failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election petition and no amendment of the pleading could be allowed to introduce such material facts after the time- limit prescribed for filing the election petition , the absence of material particulars can be cured at later stage by an appropriate amendment. In Balwan Singh v . Lakshmi Narain [ AIR 1960 SC 770 : ( 1960 ) 3 SCR 91 ] the Constitution Bench held that an election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particulars of corrupt practice alleged were not set out. On the facts of the case , the Court found that the alleged corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle for the conveyance of the voters to the polling station was

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii) ] sufficiently set out in the pleading . The Court pointed outthat the corrupt practice being hiring or procuring of the vehicle for the conveyance of the electors , if full particulars of conveying by a vehicle of electors to or from any polling stations were given. Section 83 was duly complied with, even if the particulars of the contract of hiring , as distinguished from the fact of hiring were not given.

Para 12. In Samant N. Balkrishna v . George Fernandez [ ( 1969 ) 3 SSC 238] the Court said that if the material facts of the corrupt practice are stated , more or better particulars of the charge may be given later, but where the material facts themselves are missing , it is impossible to think that the charge has been made and later amplified and that would tantamount to making of a fresh petition.

Para 16. If the abvove well - settled principles are applied in this case , there is no doubt whatever that the electionpetition suffers from a very serious defect of failure to set out material facts of the alleged corrupt practice . The defect invalidates the election petition in that regard and the petitioner ought not to have been prermitted to adduce any evidence with reference to the same .

" Para 16A. We have already extracted paras ( f) and (g) ofthe affidavit filed along with the election petition . It does not disclose the source of information. Nor does it setout which part of the election petition was personally known to the petitioner and which part came to be known by him on information. Significantly, paras (a) to ( e) of the affidavit state that the averments therein are true to his information . Para ( f) is silent on this aspect of the matter . Para (g) refers to all the 42 paragraphs in the petition . The affidavit is not in conformity with the prescribed Form No. 25. Thus there is a failure to comply with Rule 94- A of the Conduct ofElection Rules . It is a very serious defect which has been overlooked by the High Court . "

3. JAIPAL SINGH v . SMT . SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER ( AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2066 : [(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522 ] .

"Para 3. On the above pleadings , a preliminary issue was framed by the High Court-as to whether the petition lacked in material facts and did not disclose cause of action . By the impugned judgement , the High Court held that Section 83 ( 1 ) ( a) of the said Act mandates that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies , that in the present case , the appellant had failed to aver and plead two material facts viz . , that his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the appointing authority before the date of scrutiny and that his request for waiver of the notice period ofthree months was actually accepted . In the absence of 325 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

disclosure of the above facts , the High Court dismissed the election petition.

period; that the appointing authority had received the notice on the specified date and that his request for waiver stood granted on the date of scrutiny and he ceased to be a government servant. These were the material facts which the appellant should have pleaded so that the returned candidates would not be taken by surprise . They are material facts within his knowledge and ought to have beenpleaded in the election petition. Lastly , even the letter ofthe appellant seeking the waiver of the notice perioddid not form part ofthe election petition. Hence, the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition for want of material facts .

4. S.A. KHAN v. CH . BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS [(1993 ) 3 Supreme Court Cases 151 ] .

Para 7. Section 83 deals with contents of petition . It states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts , on which the petitioner relies and shall state full particulars of any corrupt practice which petitioner alleges and which shall be signed by him and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure . In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and other reported in [2004 (2) Scale 82: (2004) 3 SCC 137 ] it has been held that the Order VI , Rule 2 (1 ) of CPC deals with basic rule of pleadings and declares that the pleadings has to state material facts and not the evidence ; that there is a distinction between ' material facts ' and ' particulars ' and the words ' material facts'show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated . Omission of single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and consequently , the plaint becomes bad. The distinction between ' material facts ' and ' particulars ' Ouht by Scott. L.J. in Bruce v . Odhams Press Ltd.

was broug ... [(1936) 1 KB 697 ] in the rom ... wing passage :-

"Para 21. The bone of contention of Mr. Parasaran is that the statement of fact contained in a newspaper report is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of any proof by evidence aliunde . According to him, in the present case there is no proof that the alleged contemptuous statement was in fact made by the Chief Minister as it appears in the Press note . According to him, it is only for the applicant to satisfy the Court by adducing acceptable evidence that the statment of fact contained in the report is true and that it calls for issue of suo motu notice.According to him , the decision in P.C. Sen, Re (AIR 1970 SC 1821 ) cannot be availed of by the applicant because in that case, the evidence was led before the Court to prove that the offending speech was in fact broadcast by the ChiefMinister on the All India Radio , Calcutta Station . In support of his submission that the news item cannot be the basis for initiating contempt proceeding against the alleged maker of the statement, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238 ) wherein it has been held that news items when published are garbled versions and cannot be regarded as proof of what actually happened or was said without other acceptable evidence through proper witnesses . He also drew out attention to the dictum laid down by this Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty v . State of T.N. (1938 ) 3 SCC 319, 346 with regard to the admissibility of the news item appearing in a Press report . The dictum reads thus: ( SCC p . 346 , paras 25 and 26)

"The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim must state the material facts . The word " material" means necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action ; and if any one " material " statement is omitted , the statement of claim is bad : it is " demurrable " in the old phraseology , and in the new is liable to be " struck out " under R.S.C. Order XXV, Rule 4 [ see Philipps Phillipps (1872) 4 QBD 127 ] : or a " further and better statement of claim" may be ordered under Rule 7. The fuction of "particulars " under Rule 6 is quite different . They are not to be used in order to fill material gaps in a demurrable statement of claim-gaps which ought to have been filled by appropriate statements of the various material fact which together constitute the Plaintiff's cause of action . The use ofparticular is intended to meet a further and quite separate requirement of pleadings , imposed in fairness and justice to the defendant . Their function is to fill in the picture of the plaintiff's cause of action with information sufficiently detailed to put the defendant on his guard as to the ease he had to meet and to enable him to prepare for trial . "

Para 8. The above dictum of Scott , L.J. in Bruce's case ( supra) has been quoted with approval by this Court in the case of Samant N. Balkrishna v . George Fernandez [( 1969) 3 SCC 238 ] .

"We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence , unless proved by evidence aliunde . A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence . A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78 (2 ) of the Evidence Act , 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.

It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and , therefore.

Para 9. As to what is the material fact has to be decided in the present case , in the context of the election petition under the said Act . An election petition is a matter of statutory right. In the petition , the key issue was whether the appellant held an office of profit on the date of scrutiny. For that purpose, the appellant ought to have stated that on 13-3-2002 he had requested for waiver of the notice

491/05-5 326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005 /ASADHA, 25 , 1927

inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker ofthe statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported . "

5. SANTOSH YADAV V. NARENDER SINGH (AIR 2002SUPREME COURT 241).

" Para 16. The law as regards the results of election having been materially affected in case of improper acceptance ofnomination may be summed up as under :-- (1) A case of result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, having been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination , within the meaning of Section 100 ( 1 ) ( d) (i ) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has to be made out by raising specific pleadings setting out all material facts and adducing cogent evidence so as to enable a clear finding being arrived at on the distribution of wasted votes , that is , the manner in which the votes would have been distributed if the candidate , whose nomination paper was improperly accepted, was not in the fray .

(4) The burden of proof placed on the election petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as nearing almost an impossibility . There is no room for any guess-work , speculation , surmises or conjectures i acting on a mere possibility . It will not suffice mercly to say that all or majority of wasted votes might have gove to the next highest candidate. The law requires proof.

6. UDHAV SINGH v. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA (AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744 ) .

"Para 37. Like the Code of Civil Procedure , this section also envisages a distinction between " material facts " and " material particulars " Cl . (a) of Sub - section (1) corresponds to Order 6 , Rufe 2. while Clause (b ) is analogous to Order 6 , Rules 4 and 6 of the Code . The distinction between material facts " and material particufars" is important because different consequences may flow from a deficiency of such facts or particulars in tlie pleading. Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck offunder Order 6. Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure . If the petition is based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack of material facts the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action . In the case of a petition suffering from a deficiency of material particulars , the court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation.

Para 38. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause ofaction or his defence , are " inaterial facts " . In the context ofa charge of corrupt practice, " material facts " would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( iii) ] bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election - petition , a particular fact is material or not , and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case . In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are " material facts " which must be pleaded, and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Sec . 83 ( 1 ) ( a) .

Para 39. " Particulars " , on the other hand , are " the details of the case set up by the party " . " Material particulars " within the contemplation of Clause (b ) of Section 83 ( 1 ) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify , refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of Clause (a) . "Particulars " serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn to make it full, more detailed and more informative."

7. D. RAMACHANDRAN v . R. V. JANAKIRAMAN AND OTHERS ( AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1128) .

" Para 8 . For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection , the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the Court has to find out whether those averments disclose a cause of action or tribal issue such. The Court cannot probe into the facts on the basis of the controversy raised in the counter.

Para 9. Under Order VI , Rule 16, the Court is enabled to strike out a pleading (a) which may be unnecessary , scandalous , frivolous or vexatious or (b) which may tend toprejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit; or (c)which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Wehave already pointed out that it is not the case of the first respondent that the pleading in the election petition is vitiatedby all or any one of the aforesaid defects mentioned in the rule . Hence striking out parts of the pleading in this casewas not at all justified . "

8. REGU MAHESH ALIAS REGU MAHESWAR RAO [ (2004 ) 1 Supreme Court Cases 46 ] .

"Para 8. What is " corrupt practice " is set out in Section 123. In terms of Section 83 ( 1 ) (b ) , wherever corrupt practice is alleged, full particulars of such practice alleged including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of such practice has to be indicated . Though allegations of fraud etc. in obtaining a false caste certificate have serious implications , under the Act and particularly as the language of Section 123 (3 ) specifies and enumerates , they do not per se constitute corrupt practice . The fact that a candidate obtains a certificate that he belonged [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( iii) ]

to and is a member of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe to contest as one belonging to such caste/ tribe , essential and necessary for contesting as a candidate in a reserved constituency , at any rate , cannot amount to an appeal to vote or refrain from'voting on the ground of his caste/tribe for the reason that what was obligated by the statute upon anyone to be entitled to contest in such a reserved constituency cannot become condemnable as " corrupt practice" . To attract the vice of the said provisions as amounting to " corrupt practice " , independent appeal or canvassing for votes by the candidate or his agent or by another person with the consent of the candidate or the election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate is an essential ingredient."

9 ..MAHADEORAO SUKAJI SHIVANKAR v . RAMARATAN BAPU AND OTHERS [ (2004 ) 7 Supreme Court Cases 181 ] .

"Para 6. Now , it is no doubt true that all material facts have to be set out in an election petition . If material facts are not stated in a plaint or a petition , the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone as the case would be covered by clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. The question , however, is as to whether the petitioner had set out material facts in the election petition . The expression "material facts " has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code . It may be stated that the material facts are those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence . In other words , material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading of the party.

Para 7. But , it is equally , well settled that there is distinction between " material facts" and " particulars" Mateial facts are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the petitioner in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence . Particulars , on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party . They amplify , refine and embellish material facts by giving finishing touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make itfull , more clear and more informative . Particulars ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise.

20. Keeping in view the above decisions and the relevant provisions of law , the relief of striking out the offending paragraphs and the rejection of election

327

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16 , 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

petition- sought for in the application has to be considered by examining the relevant paragraphs in the election petition .

21. In the averments in paragraphs 8 ( b ) to ( d ) of the election petition , it is averred that if the applicant/ returned candidate , has joined Indian National Congress , this fact should have been informed to the thirteenth respondent, viz . , Election Commission of India , and if it is so , the thirteenth respondent could have informed the same to the election petitioner's agent on his request and since the thirteenth respondent has not replied, it is presumed that there is no change as on 20-4-2004 in the particulars furnished by Congress Jananayaga Peravai at the time of its registration . Document No. 1 filed alongwith the Election Petition , is the xerox copy of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Amendment Notification dated 29-3-2004 to Election Symbols ( Reservation & Allotment ) Order, 1968 issued by the Election Commission of India . Document No. 2 is a Fax transmission report dated 21-4-2004 . Document No. 3 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 21-4-2004 sent by oneHaja Najmuddin claiming to be the chief election agent of the election petitioner, addressed to the 13th respondent seeking information about the returned candidate's official status in Congress Jananayaga Peravai as on 20-4-2004 .

22. The contention of the applicant/ returned candidate is that thre is no obligation on the part of a citizen to inform the 13th respondent viz . , the Election Commission, as to when he joined a political party and there is no obligation that 13th respondent should convey the informationto the election petitioner's agent and there isno presumption that since the election petitioner did not receive the reply , there was no change as on 20-4-2004 in the particulars given by Congress Jananayaga Peravai and any enquiry into these aspects would be irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the election petition and such an enquiry would be vexatious and hence the averments are liable to be struck out .

23. It is true that the election petitioner has not disclosed the provision of law under which the parties / citizens are required to inform the Election Commission furnishing the information about admission , resignation/ removal of their membership in the registered political party and the Election Commission is required to maintain information about the members of political parties and the obligation on their part to furnish such membership information on request . In the absence of disclosure of relevant provision of law constituting the material facts fromwhich the presumption can flow, those averments are liable to be struck out as sought for.

24. In paragraph No. 11 of the election petition . the election petitioner has reproduced in verbatim the 328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

objections made by him to the 12th respondent , viz , the Returning Officer and although those objections were rejected by the Returning Officer , they have been reproduced in the election petition and according to the applicant/returned candidate many of those averments are liable to be struck out on the ground that they are unnecessary , irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the election petition and the applicant has sought for striking out the bullets bearing Nos . 5 , 8 to 10 and 13 .

25. In the 5th bullet, the election petitioner has stated that the returned candidate has filed Forms A and B , as if he is the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress and the reserved symbol is the recognition accorded by theElection Commission identifying the particular political party and it is neither a chattel owned by the said political party which could be bartered or sold or mortgaged or gifted nor it is available to the candidate not set up by the political party and it is not the property to be gifted to anybody or to be abused.

26. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/ returned candidate submitted that the election petitioner has not stated clearly as to whether the Indian National Congress violated any law by setting up the applicant as their candidate and whether the applicant has violated any law by filing the nomination as the candidate of Indian National Congress and the averment regarding reserved symbol being bartered , mortgaged , gifted or sold is vague and does not specify the provision of law under which the said assumption is made and how and under what provision of law this averment shall render the acceptance of the nomination of the applicant improper and constitute a ground to challenge the election and hence the averments in the said sub - paragraph are unnecessary , frivolous , vexatious , scandalous and have to be struck off. It is true that the said sub - paragraph raised no disputed question of fact or issue of law and it reflects only the opinion of the election petitioner and no issue of fact or law can be framed and the sub - paragraph is liable to be struck out as prayed for.

27. In the 8th bullet, the election petition has stated that it is an admitted fact that the returned candidate is neither a member of the Indian National Congress nor can he claim so and hence the question of membership of the said political party whose symbol he wants to utilize for the purpose of election cannot be allotted to him and only a person who is a member or card - holder of the particular political party can be given the reserved symbol of that political party and the same cannot be allotted to other persons by the Returning Officer .

28. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/ returned candidate contended that the averment

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)] thatit is an admitted fact that the returned candidate is not a member of Indian National Congress is a mere imaginary assertion and it is not supported by any material fact on the basis of which it can be said to be an admission and it is not stated as to who , where and when admitted as said above and the election petitioner has neither furnished documentary evidence nor pleaded the material facts , particulars regarding the said assertion of alleged admission and the election petition has also not disclosed the source of information and hence the said averment is liable to be struck out . He further contended that the averment stating that the returned candidate cannot claim thathe is a member of that party is also an empty assumption and imagination of election petitioner and liable to be struck off for want of material facts and particulars . According to him , the averment to the effect that the symbol ofthe political party which the applicant wants to utilize cannot be allotted to him , is also not supported by any material fact and no material fact is pleaded to show and prove as to how the acceptance of the nomination and allotment of the symbol reserved for Indian National Congress to the applicant has materially affected the result ofthe election and the averment that the Returning Officer cannot allot the synmbol to the applicant is also not supported by any material fact as to why it should not be allotted and the specific provision of law which prevent or render the allotment of symbol as improper has also not been stated and the sub - paragraph is liable to be struck off.

29. The learned counsel for the election petitioner contended that the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the election petition can be substantiated only at the time of trial by letting in evidence and it cannot be decided atthis stage .

30. The above sub -paragrah only reflects the opinion ofthe election petitioner and no issue of fact or law can be framed and any enquiry into the said averments would only be irrelevant and immaterial and the averment has to be struck out as prayed for .

31. In the 9th bullet, the election petitioner has averred that the election symbol is not a movable property that could be bartered away and the Tenth Schedule of the Constituion of India deals about the membership of a particular person tracing him to the said political party and by mere allotment of symbol , a person will not be deemed to be a member of that political party and the meinbership is the basic fabric for any person to be the candidate in an election to whom the reserved symbol of the particular political party can be allotted and at the will and pleasure of the political party, a third party unconnected with the political party , cannot be allotted with the symbol as a matter of grace or as a matter of will .

[भाग II-खंड 3 (iii) ]

32. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant / returned candidate contended that these averments do not specifically state as to how the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India shall apply to the election petition and Tenth Schedule relates to the certain conduct of the elected candidate and has no relevance to a stage prior to the declaration of the election and further the election petitioner has failed to state the material facts as to why the symbol of Indian National Congress should not have been allotted to the applicant and which provision of the Representation of People Act or Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment ) Order has been violated while allotting the symbol and the averments contained no material facts and liable to be struck off as irrelevant..

33. Nothing in reply is found in the counter of the election petitioner to this averment of the applicant.

34. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India contains the provisions as to disqualification on ground ofdefection and it will come into play only after declaration ofelection and it has no application to an election petition . The averments in this paragraph contain no material fact as rightly contended by the applicant and it has to be struck out as prayed for.

35. In the 10th bullet, the election petitioner has stated that the applicant is no longer a candidate set up by the Indian National Congress and in such a situation , he loses the character of the candidate set up by a political partywhich has got the benefit under the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment ) Order and if that be so , he is deemed to be only an independent candidate and as such he should have been proposed atleast by ten voters which is not the case with respect to the nomination filed by him before the Returning Officer and the mandatory requirements prescribed for nomination of the independent candidate have not been followed by the applicant .

36. The learned Senior Cousel appearing for the applicant/returned candidate contended that the election petitioner has failed to state the material facts as to why the applicant is not a candidate set up by the said political party viz . , Indian National Congress , even though Forms Aand B have been duly presented to the Returning Officer and this allegation is made on information , but the source and details relating thereto have been withheld and it is also not stated with material facts as to how the result of the election was materially affected by the allegation . It is his further contention that the averment regarding deeming the applicant as an independent candidate is imaginary hypothetical assumption and is not founded on any law or facts and the election petitioner has failed to state the provisions as per which the applicant is deemed to have

329

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

been an independent candidate and the election petitioner cannot plead/raise a hypothecated situation and answer the same against the applicant .

37. It is true that the election petitioner in the above sub -paragraph has chosen to state that the applicant is no longer a candidate set up by the Indian National Congress though Forms A and B have been duly presented to the Returning Officer , without stating the material facts based on which the assumption is made and no issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of such averments and any enquiry into the same would be wholly irrelevant and immaterial and this sub -paragraph deserves to be struck out as sought for.

38. In the 13th bullet, the election petitioner has averred that neither the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India nor the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order could be taken for a ride by any political party as if the authorised signatory can name anybody in Forms A and B to allot the reserved symbol of the political party and if it is not so , wayfarers in the political scenario could be benefited by such allotment of symbols , which is not the intention of the very recognition of the political party or reserved symbol and in order to preserve the democratic system , a deep analysis of these aspects is necessary to avoid political persons to over- ride the mandatory provisions in respect of acquiring symbols for contesting elections.

39. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/returned candidate contended that the averments regarding the intention and interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order is a product of the election petitioner's vagaries of mind based on presumptions and assumptions of facts and law that ought to be and hence not relevant to the election petition and the said averments do not fall within the four corners of election law and liable to be struck off . The averments in this sub - paragraph are only the arguments of the election petitioner and not relevant to the election petition and they have to be struck out as sought for.

40. The election petitioner in Paragraph 12 ( d ) of the election petition has stated that it is not known as to when the applicant has resigned from the primary membership of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and re joined and enrolled himself as member of the Indian National Congress and though the election petitioner has wanted those details , the same have not been furnished either by the applicant orby the Returning Officer and in sub -para (e) of Paragraph 12 , the election petitioner has stated that the 13th respondent viz. , Election Commission of India, would have the records to show the applicant's position and status in the Congress Jananayaga Peravai and if there had been any change , it could have been duly intimated to the agent 330

[PART II-SEC . 3(iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2005/ ASADHA, 25 , 1927

source and details of information have not been pleaded by way of material facts and the averments are only vague allegations and not supported by material facts and they are liable to be struck off.

of the election petitioner and in sub -para (g) of Paragraph 12 , it is averred that the applicant and the Indian national Congress have treated the reserved symbol like that of a chattel and it has been assigned to the applicant being fully aware that he is a founder member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai .

42. The learned counsel for the election petitioner contended that whether the applicant re -joined the Indian National Congress as alleged by him and whether he had furnished any information about this to the 13th respondent as required by law and whether he continued to be a founder leader /president of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai are all matters to be considered only at the time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage.

In sub -para (i ) of Paragraphs 12 of election petition, it is stated that the agent of the election petitioner filed his objections with the Returning Officer and sought for information pertaining to the membership of the applicant with the Indian National Congress and the Returning Officerdid not give any satisfactory reply to the objections raised and this only leads to adverse inference as to his membership.

In sub -para (j ) of Paragraph 12 of election petition , it is stated that the 13th respondent has failed in its duty to provide the requested information about the applicant when contacted by the agent of the election petitioner and ithas not complied with the provisions of law which provide for the right of the electorate to get information about the contesting candidates .

43. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, the alleged inaction on the part of the 13th respondent cannot form the basis or ground to challenge the election of the applicant/ returned candidate under the provisions of the Representation of People Act and no material facts have been pleaded to show that the applicant was not a member of Indian National Congress on the date of filling of nomination and these averments are only vague allegations , not supported by material facts and have to be struck off as sought for in the application .

It is averred in sub - para ( k) of Paragraph 12 of election petition that the 13th respondent has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the election petitioner and not responded to the request of the agent of the election petitioner and has accepted the nomination of the applicant by his proceedings dated 24-4-2004.

In sub -para ( 1 ) of paragraph 12 , it is stated that the 13th respondent has not acted in a transparent and accountable manner for the purpose of which it has been made as an autonomous body with vast powers for the effective functioning of democracy.

44. The election petitioner in paragraph 12 (h ) of the election petition has averred that the applicant has played a fraud on the Constitution of India and has failed to maintain the high traditions of democracy and purity of elections and he has resorted to fraudulent means by misrepresenting that he is a member of Indian National Congress and that he no longer continues to be a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai . In sub -para ( m) , it is averred that the improper acceptance of the applicant's nomination has materially affected the election result and the polling trend and the applicant misrepresented thathe is a member of the Indian National Congress and played a fraud on the large number of illiterate mass who exercised their franchise by identifying the candidate only with the help of his political symbol and hence they have been duped into believing that he is a Congressman and the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination by the 12th respondent.

41. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/ returned candidate contended that the averments regarding the 13th respondent not furnishing of details are alien factors to the present election petition and the same cannot form a ground to challenge the election of the applicant and the inaction on the part of the 13th respondent even if it is true, cannot form the basis or ground to challenge the election of the applicant under the provisions of the Representation of People Act and hence the averments have to be struck off. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the election petitioner neither stated the material facts and particulars to prove that the applicant was a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of filling of his nomination nor has he stated the material facts which would show that the applicant was not a member of Indian National Congress on the date of filling of his nomination and no material facts have been pleaded to show conclusively that the applicant was not a member of Indian National Congress and the averments having been made on information , the

45. The learned Senior Counsel for the appli- cant/returned candidate vehemently contended that the election petitioner has made an irresponsible allegation of fraud without giving particulars and the allegation is based onpresumption and not on the basis of any facts and the source of information and the details of document or persons from whom these information are gathered have not been disclosed by way of material facts and particulars and these averments are per se scandalous and defamatory and ought to be struck out .

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

46. The learned counsel for the election petitioner contended that the details as to how the election process is vitiated on account of irregularities and illegalities are mentioned in the election petition and they have to be substantiated only at the time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage.

47. It is true that the allegation of fraud has been made without giving any particulars . It is settled law that whena party pleads fraud, he shall state the particulars of it in the pleadings . The election petitioner has made the allegation of fraud not on the basis of any fact and there canbe no enquiry into the averments contained in the sub -paragraphs and they liable to be struck out as prayed for

48. In paragraph 12 ( n) of election petition, it is averred that the applicant continues to be a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai is very clear and evident from the various Press releases and advertisements given out by the Congress Jananayaga Peravai congratulating its party leader upon his victory in the election.

49. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant/ returned candidate that the above averments are made on the basis of Press reports and the same are not authentic facts which could be independently relied upon without other pleading of material facts or documentary evidence in support of the election petitioner's claim to establish the cause of action for the Election Petition and the material facts relating to the press reports such as the reason for non - filing of the original manuscript, the name , address , identity of the person who reported the news , the source of his information, the name of editor and publisher of the newspaper, the region of the edition have not been pleaded and disclosed and no other material facts and particulars to corroborate the newspaper report have been pleaded and no connection has been alleged or established between the applicant and the said Press releases and advertisements and no enquiry can be made into the same and the averments ought to be struck off.

50. It is well settled that the newspaper reports are only hearsay secondary evidence , unless proved by evidence atiunde . Documents 8 to 15 are copies of the various newspaper reports . As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant , no material facts to corroborate the newspaper reports have been pleaded and in the absence of the same , the averments have to be struck out as prayed for .

51. In Paragraph 12( o) , the election petitioner has stated that even prior to the polling date, when the profile and other details of the various candidates were printed and circulated in the Press , the applicant was only portrayed as a member of the Congress jananayaga Peravai and they

331

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

were having an alliance with Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Indian National Congress and hence the applicant was not entitled to contest under the political symbol reserved for Indian National Congress .

52. It is urged on behalf of the applicant/ returned candidate that the above averment is not based on any facts or documents and do not raise any issue of fact or law and hence ought to be struck off.

53.As already seen , Forms A and B have been duly presented to the Returning Officer by the Indian National Congress setting up the applicant as their candidate and the same has been accepted by the Returning Officer and the electionpetitioner has not pleaded any material fact as to how the applicant was not entitled to contest under the political symbol reserved for the Indian National Congress. This averment is also liable to be struck out as sought for.

54. The election petitioner in paragraph 14 of the electionpetition has averred that the applicant by making a false representation in his nomination , has indulged in corruptpractice, which though not per se come under the purview of Section 123 of the representation of People Act, by confusing the mind of electorate as being a Congressman.

55. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/ returned candidate strenuously contended that this averment is contrary to the election law , as there is deeming provision as to what could be deemed to be a corruptpractice under Section 123 of the Representation ofpeople Act and the election petitioner is not entitled to infuse any other criteria into the deeming clause for treating it to be a corrupt practice . It is a further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the election petitioner himself has candidly admitted that the applicant is not guilty of corrupt practice as prescribed under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act and hence no cause of action for the election petition is made out and the averment has to be struck off.

56. Section 2 ( 1) ( c) of the Representation of Peoples Act states that ' corrupt practice' means any of the practice specified in Section 123 of the Act and the corrupt practices are exhaustively stated in Section 123 of the Act and other than that , there cannot be any other corrupt practice. Hence, there can be no enquiry into this bare allegation and the paragraph is liable to be struck out as sought for.

57. As discussed above , the applicant is entitled for the relief of striking out of the offending paragraphs as sought for in the application . The averments contained in the remaining paragraphs have to be analysed.

332

[PART II SEC . 3 (iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

58. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the election petition deal with the description of parties . The averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 are not germane to the issue .

59. In paragraph 5 , it is averred that the returned candidate was a member of Indian National Congress and in the year 1996 he was expelled from that party as hejoined a new political out - fit , namely , Tamil Maanila Congress (Moopanar) which was a recognised State Political Party and as its candidate contested in the Sivaganga parliamentary Constituency thrice , in the years 1996 , 1998 and 1999 and in the year 2001 he was expelled from that party and he founded Congress Jananayaga Peravai and registered the same as a political party with the Election Commission of India . There are no material facts pleaded and the averments are irrelevant .

61. In para 7 , the election petitioner has averred that as per law a person could not be a member of more than one political party at a given point of time and while registering a political party, particulars regarding the names of its President , Secretary , Treasurer and other Office Bearers should be furnished under an affidavit duly signed by the President/General Secretary of the party sworn in before a First Class Magistrate/Oath Commissioner/Notary Public to the effect that no member of the Organisation is a member of any other political party registered with the Commission and similar individual affidavits from atleast 100 members of the party should also be furnished and after registration as a political party as per sub - section of Sec . 29 (A) of the Representation of the People Aet , 1951 , any change in its name , head office , office bearers , address shall be communicated to the Election Commission without delay.The learned Senior Counsel for the returned candidate contended that though the election petitioner has stated on advice that as per law a person cannot be a member of more than one political party, he has not pleaded the material facts as to the name , identity and address of the person who gave the advice and he has not set out the provision of law which prohibits a person from being a member of more than one political party at a given point of time and which constitutes a ground for declaring the election invalid . It is true that no material facts have been pleaded stating the relevant provision of law and the violation , if any , and the averments are irrelevant, frivolous and vexatious .

60. In para 6, the election petitioner has averred that the returned candidate filed his nomination on 19-4-2004 declaring himself as a candidate of Indian National Congress and as he was a member of Congress jananayaga Peravai on that date , his declaration is false and the Agent of the election petitioner contacted the 13th amendment , namely , the Election Commission of India, over phone on 20-4-2004 to ascertain the official position of the returned candidate in Congress Jananayaga Peravai and as instructed he also sent a written representation on 21-4-2004 to the 13th respondent requesting it to furnish the details regarding the official position of the returned candidate in Congress mayaga Peravai as on 20-4-2004 and there was no response . As already seen , the election petitioner has not stated the material facts to prove that the returned candidate was a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of his nomination and no material facts have been pleaded to show that the applicant was not a member of Indian National Congress as on that date , and the averments having been made on information, the source and details of information have not been pleaded by way of material facts and the averments are only vague allegations not supported by material facts . The learned Senior Counsel for the returned candidate contended that the election petitioner has not stated material facts to prove the appointment of the election petitioner's Agent , the name and address of the election Agent who was said to have given written representation and also not pleaded material facts and material particulars to show sending of written representation such as mode of despatch delivery, acknowledgement from the Office of the Election Commission to prove the claim of sending written representation and the averments are frivolous and vexatious . As already seen , the averments regarding the 13th respondent not furnishing details to the clection petitioner are alone factors to the election petition and the same cannot form a ground to challenge the election .

62. In para 9 , it is averred that during the scrutiny of nominations on 24-4-2004 , the agent and proposers of the election petitioner raised serious objections before the Returning Officer , namely , the 12th respondent, seeking to reject the nomination of the returned candidate by filing the written objection and the same came to be rejected by Order of the 12th respondent dated 24-4-2004 and the Agent of the election petitioner sent a petition dated 25-4-2004 to the 13th respondent requesting it not to publish the final list and stop the election. Document No. 4 is the written objection dated 24-4-2004 given by one Haja Najmuddin , claiming himself to be the Chief Election Agent of the election petitioner , to the Returning Officer ; Document No. 5 is the Proceedings of the Returning Officer , dated 24-4-2004 rejecting the objections ; Document No. 6 is the petition dated 25-4-2004 sent by Haja Najmuddin addressed to the 13th respondent ; and Document No. 7 is a FAx Transmission Report dated 26-4-2004 . The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the returned candidate contended that the clection petitioner has failed to furnish the material facts and matemal particulars about the name , identity and address of his alleged Agent and his authority of appointment pleaded and document produced, and the name, identity and address of his proposers also have not been pleaded [ भाग II-खंड 3 (iii ) ]

with material facts , who are said to have raised the objection, and the election petitioner has failed to state under what provision of law the election petitioner is entitled to request and the 13th respondent is empowered to stop the election and not to publish the final list of candidates and hence , the averments are irrelevant , frivolous and vexatious . This contention raised on behalf of the returned candidate cannot be brushed aside . No material facts and provisions of law have been pleaded in these averments .

63. In para 10 , it is averred that the 12th respondent , namely , the Returning Officer , in his Proceedings has rejected the objections without going into the root of the question and improperly accepted the nomination of the first respondent as a valid one and it is wrong , improper , illegal and against the spirit of the Constitution , the Representation of the People Act, and the Election Symbols. ( Reservation & Allotment) Order , 1968 , the conduct of Election Rules , 1961 together with the periodical instructions issued by the 13th respondent . The learned Senior Counsel for the returned candidate contended that no material facts have been pleaded to show as to how and why the acceptance of nomination of the returned candidate was improper and the relevant provision of law required to be satisfied for acceptance of nomination , and which has not been satisfied . He further contended that the election petitioner has not mentioned the provision of the Constitution , Section of the Representation of the People Act , and the Rule made under it and the particular Order made under that Act sought to be relied upon to prove the allegation in the election petition and there are no averments much less material facts to the effect that the allegation has materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate . The fact remains that the election petitioner has not chosen to mention the specific provision of law and the material facts regarding its violation . The averments are vague and vexatious .

64. Inpara 13 , it is averred that the averments in the electionpetition would manifestly prove and establish that by the improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate by the 12th respondent, the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate had been materially affected and there had been flagrant violations of the provisions of the Constitution , the Representation of the People Act and the rules framed thereunder , the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order and the Conduct of the Election Rules and in view of the above illegalities , the election has to be declared as ' viod ' . As already seen , the election petitioner has failed to plead material facts and furnish material particulars to establish that the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected 199451/ 05-6

333

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

on account of the alleged improper acceptance of his nomination and furhter the election petitioner has not pleaded material facts as to how he could have obtained a majority ofvalid votes to support his claim to declare himself as elected. The averments in this paragraph also are vague and frivolous besides bereft of material facts .

65. The election petitioner has mentioned various dates on which the cause of action arose in para 15 , and para 16 states the payment of costs and court fee and para 17 is the prayer portion .

66. To sum up , the election petitioner has not pleaded either material facts or violation of any specific provision of law to make out a cause of action and a tribal issue for the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate and further , no material facts to prove violation of any specific provision of the Constitution of India or the Representation of People Act or Rules or Orders made under it have been pleaded in support of the election petition and moreover, no material fact is pleaded in the election petition to make out a cause of action and triable issue that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected.

67. The election petitioner has not pleaded material facts or any specific provision of law in the election petition to show that the returned candidate was a member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and was not a member of Indian National Congress on the date of filing of his nomination and no allegation of corrupt practice as set out in Section 123 of the Representation of People Acthas been pleaded. The election petition , read as a whole, does not disclose any cause of action or triable issue and the same has to be rejected as sought for in the application.

68. Inthe result, the Original Application No. 105 of 2005 is allowed as prayed for . Consequently , the Election Petition No. 3 of 2004 is dismissed . The parties have to bear the respective costs in the Original Application as well as in the Election Petition .

Witness, the Hon'ble Thiru Markandey Katju , Chief Justice, High Court at Madras , aforesaid this the 14th day ofJune, 2005.

V. NALLASENAPATHY, Assistant Registrar,

Original Sie II

[No. 82/TN -HP/3/2004 ]

ByOrder,

TAPAS KUMAR, Secy .

334

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005 /ASADHA, 25 , 1927

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2005

आ. अ. 86.-यतः निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट मध्य प्रदेश राज्य से लोक सभा के लिए हुए साधारण निर्वाचन , 2004 में , जो स्तम्भ (3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से हुआ है , स्तम्भ (4 ) में उसके सामने निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा उसके अधीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 5 ) में यथा दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है ;

और यतः उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है और निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त असफलता के लिए उनके पास कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है,

अतः अब, निर्वाचन आयोग , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों का संसद के किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य/संघ राज्य क्षेत्र 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 ।

सारणी

निरर्हता का कारण क्र. निर्वाचन का विवरण सं.

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम और पता

लोक सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र कीक्रम सं. व नाम

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5) 7-दामोह

राम किशोर यादव,

निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे । 1. मध्य प्रदेश से लोक सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2004

ग्राम मुराछ, पो . आ. रनवाहा , तह. पन्ना, जिला पन्ना, मध्य प्रदेश

-वही- 2. -वही-

13-मण्डला (अ.ज.जा.)

बराती लाल मसराम, हिरदेनगर, कटगाटोला, तह. मण्डला, जिला मण्डला, मध्य प्रदेश

[सं . 76/म.प्र.-लो.स./2004 ]

आदेश से,

एस. के. कौरा, सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July , 2005

O. N. 86. Whereas , the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates specified in column(4) ofthe Table below at the General Election to Lok Sabha, 2004 from the State of Madhya Pradesh as specified in column (2) held from the Constituency specified in column (3 ) against his name has failed to lodge any account of election expenses as required by the Representations of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder as shown in column (5) of the said Table:

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act , the Election Commission hereby declares the persons specified in column (4) of the table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either 335 [भाग II- खंड 3 (iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

House of the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State/Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this Order :-

TABLE

Particularof Election

SI . No.

Reasonfor Disqualification

Name and Address of

Contesting Candidate

S. No. & Name ofParliamentary Constituency

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1) (2)

3-Damoh

Failure to lodge any account of election expenses .

General Election to Lok Sabha, 2004 fromMadhya Pradesh

RamKishore Yadav, Gram-Murachh, P.O. -Ranvaha, Teh. -Panna Zila-Panna Madhya Pradesh .

13-Mandla (ST)

Barati Lal Masram, Village-Hirdenagar , (KatangaTola), Teh. -Mandla, Distt. -Mandla, Madhya Pradesh .

[No.76/MP -HP/2004]

ByOrder,

S.K. KAURA, Secy .

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 7 जुलाई , 2005

आ. अ. 87.-यतः भारत निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि गोवा राज्य में विधान सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2002 में 26-कोर्टालिम निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी श्री कलानगुटकर शशीकान्त गनपत , मकान सं. 162 , वेलासाव पाले, पो. आ.- कनसाऊलिन, गोवा, अपने निर्वाचन व्यय का लेखा, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 तथा तंद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित विधि से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं ;

और, यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थी निर्वाचन आयोग के द्वारा संम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहींदिया है । तथा निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है; अतः अब , निर्वाचन आयोग , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में श्री कलानगुटकर शशीकान्त गनपत को संसद के किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य या संघ राज्य क्षेत्र की विधान सभा अथवा विधान परिषद् के सदस्य चुने जाने और होने के लिए इस आदेश की तारीखे से तीन वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए निरर्हित घोषित करता है ।

[सं. 76/गोवा-वि.स . /2002 ]

आदेश से,

के. आर. प्रसाद, सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2005

O. N. 87. Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that Sh . Kalangutkar Shashikant Ganpat, H. No. 162, Velasao Pale . P.O. Cansaulin, Goa contesting candidate at the General Election to the Goa Legislative Assembly, held in 2002 from the 26 - Cortalim Constituency has failed to lodge the account of his election expenses in manner as required by the Representation of the People Act , 1951 and the Rules made thereunder ;

And, whereas , the said candidates has not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice by the Election Commission and the Election Commission is 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 Sh . Kalangutkar Shashikant Ganpat, disqualified for being chosen as , and for being a member of either House of the Parliament 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/GOA - LA/ 2002 ] ByOrder, K. R. PRASAD , Secy.

336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 16, 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ]

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2005

आ. अ. 88.-यतः निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के विनिर्दिष्ट कर्नाटक विधान सभा के लिए, 2004 के साधारण निर्वाचन के लिए जो स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से हुआ है स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में उसके सामने विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी, लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा तद्वीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में यथा दर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है ;

और, यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है और निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है;

अतः अब, निर्वाचन आयोग , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 - क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को संसद 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 ।

सारणी

निरर्हता का कारण

क्र. विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी

कानाम और पता

सं. की क्रम सं . और नाम

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 1. 6 - बासवकल्याण

श्री शिवराज तिम्मन्ना बोक्के,

निवासीत्रिपुरनाथ,

तालुक बासवकल्याण, जिला बीदर,

कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री खामुद्दीन बीदरी,

2. 13-चितापुर

जालनाबाद एम . एस. के. मिल,

गुलबर्गा , कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री रंगप्पा,

3. 20- देवदुर्ग ( अ.जा. )

शिवांगी तालुक, देवदुर्ग, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 4. 21-रायचूर

श्री ए. रामअंजनेयालू उर्फ कामरेड रवि,

हाऊस नं. 12-11-32 , अरब मोहल्ला रायचूर,

कर्नाटक

5. 22- कत्माला

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्रीमती शरनम्मा देवमित्रा गरलादिन्नी,

पोस्टगरलादिन्नी,

जिला और तालुक रायचूर , कर्नाटक

6. 23-मानवी

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री मुदुकाप्पा नायक,

नारायणातीर्थ आश्रम के पास ,

मानवी, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 7 . 24-लिंगसुगुर

श्रीमती शरम्मा कामराड्डी, निवासीमास्की,

तालुक लिंगसुगुर, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया कामरेड चिन्नप्पा कोत्रिकी,

8. 24-लिंगसुगुर

हिरेनागनुर, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री गरापति वेकटरत्नम,

9. 25-सिन्घनूर

तयाम्मा कैम्प, पो. आ. गांधी नगर,

तालुक सिन्धनूर, कर्नाटक

337 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 25, 1927

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

10. 28-कनकगिरी

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री बासवराज गोवरीपुरा सुपुत्र भिमन्ना, गौरीपुर, गंगावती तालुक, जिला कोप्पल,

कर्नाटक

11. 39- हारापानाहल्ली

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया (अ.जा.)

श्रीमप्तिके. लोकम्मा, पत्नी के. एस. वीराप्पा, माचिहाल्ली कोराचाराहही, माचिहाल्ली पोस्ट, हारापानाहल्ली तालुक, कर्नाटक

12. 40- हरिहर

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री एच.एन. गुरू , होसापेटे बीघी , हरिहर 577601 , दावन्गरे जिला, कर्नाटक

13. 40- हरिहर

लेखा रीति से दाखिल नहीं किया श्री ए. मरूला सिड्‌डाप्पी, डोर स. 3891 पतला मेन, पहला क्रास, विघानगर, दावन्गेरे - 577004 , कर्नाटक

14. 40- हरिहर

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री एम. जी. वीरना गौडा, होले सिरीगेरे पोस्ट आफिस , हरिहर तालुक,, दावन्गेरे जिला, कर्नाटक

15. 40- हरिहर

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री जबिउल्ला,

पुराना भरमपुरा , चौथी मैन, फर्स्ट क्रास , हरिहर-577601 , दावनगेरे जिला, कर्नाटक

16. 42-मायाकोन्डा

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री एच. एश्वरप्पा सुपुत्र हनुमानथप्पा, पी.बी. रोड, चन्दोदय मिल के सामने, दावनगेरे, कर्नाटक

17. 44-चित्रदुर्ग

विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया

श्री बी. एच. थिप्पैय्या रेड्डी, सुपुत्र हनुमानथप्पा बेलागट्टा, चित्रदुर्ग तालुक, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 18. 44-चित्रदुर्ग

श्री पी. आर. अरविन्द सुपुत्र पी रंगप्पा रेड्डी, तालावट्टी, ईमानगला, होब्ली, हीरियूर तालुक,

कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 19. 45- जगालुर

श्री के.बी. मंजूनाथ स्वामी सुपुत्र के. बालप्पा, तीसरा मेन रोड, मातुरही मन्दिर के पास , विनोबा नगर, 9 वां क्रास दावनगेरे, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 20. 45- जगालुर

श्रीके. जयन्ना सुपुत्र स्व. कित्तुर, कोत्राबसप्पा उद्दागट्टा, जगालुर तालुक, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 21. 48-मोलाकात्मुरू

श्री ए. टी. परमेश्रप्पा देवसमुद्र (पोस्ट आफिस ) , मोलाकात्मुरू तालुक, चित्रदुर्ग, कर्नाटक 338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2005 /ASADHA , 25 , 1927

[PART II - SEC . 3 (iii) | (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

22. 81-चामराजपेट

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्रीअनंत नाग, 400, चौथा क्रास, दूसरा स्टेज, दूसरा ब्लाक, आर. एम. वी. एक्सटेंशन , बैंगलौर-94,

कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 23. 87 -जयमहल

श्री एम. जुबैर अहमद, सं. 13 , तीसरी क्रास, मरप्पा गार्डन, जे. सी. नगर, बंगलोर-560006 , कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 24. 87 -जयमहल

श्रीमती कविता डी. डेविस, स. -66, 7वां क्रास , विक्टोरिया लेआऊट, बंगलोर-560047 , कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 25. 87 -जयमहल

श्रीमती अमुघा, स. - 25 , पहला क्रास , पहला मेन रोड़, पिल्लन्ना गार्डन , पहला स्टेज, बंगलोर -560084, कर्नाटक

26. 94 -रामनगरम

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री पुट्टामस्तीगौडा, सुपत्र स्व. मस्ती गौडा, कृष्णापुरादोद्दी, रामनगरम तालुक, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 27. 97 - दो‌द्दाबल्लापुर

श्री एम. मुनिराजू , सुपुत्र स्व. मुनिशमैय्या, सं. -1593 , वेरामद्भपत्या, पूरा वार्ड, दोद्दाबल्लापुर, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 28. 98- देवनाहल्ली ( अ.जा.)

श्री के. राजन्ना सं. - १ , कन्नामंगला गेट, देवनाहल्ली तालुक -562110 , कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 29. 99 -होसाकोटे

श्री एच. वी. वैकोबाराव, प्रथम क्रास, टी. जी. एक्सटेंशन, होसरकोटे टाऊन-562114, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 30. 104-मालावल्ली (अ.जा.)

श्री के. एन. शिवशंकर, सुपुत्र एस. नागराजू, पुलिस क्र्वाटर्स, मालावल्ली , कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 31. 104-मालावल्ली (अ.जा.)

श्री मंत्या लिंगा , सुपुत्र कुण्डैया,

सतीहल्ली, मालावल्ली, तालुक कर्नाटक

32. 105 - माण्डया

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री आरिफ पांशा, डोर सं. 2778 , चौथा क्रास, गांधी नगर, माण्डया, कर्नाटक

33. 107- श्रीरंगपटना

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री एम. संतोष, सुपुत्र स्व, एस . मरियप्पा, जैन मन्दिर रोड़, श्रीरंगपटना टाऊन, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 34. 107- श्रीरंगपटना

श्री योगानन्द पटेल मारीगौड़ा, सुपुत्र पटेल मारीगौड़ा, ए. हुल्लुकेरे ग्राम , बेविनाहल्ली पोस्ट, कोथाथी होब्ली, माण्डया तालुक, कर्नाटक 339 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

35.

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 112-बन्नुर

श्री एम. नागराजु, सुपुत्रस्व. माचिगौड़ा, सं. 487, ए और बी ब्लाक, कुवेमपुनागारा, मैसूर-570023 , कर्नाटक

36. 116- नरसिम्हाराजा

-वही-

श्रीमती पुष्पा,

सं. 78 , नौवा मुख्य, सरस्वतीपुरम,

मैसूर, कर्नाटक

-वही-

37. 121 - गुन्दलुपेट

श्री लक्ष्मण सेट्टी , सुपुत्र रूसेसेट्टी , ओड्डारहन्नी ग्राम, यरगनहल्ली पोस्ट, चामराजनगर तालुक, कर्नाटक

-वही-

38. 137 - सुल्लिया

(अ.जा.)

श्री राजा पल्लमजाल, सुपुत्र बाबू, पल्लमजालु हाऊस , बंटवाला तालुक, कर्नाटक

-वही-

39. 139 -विट्टल

श्री एन. दामोदर पूजारी , निघा हाऊस, विट्टल , कसबा ग्राम, बंटवाल तालुक, डी. के. जिला, कर्नाटक

-वही-

40. 141 -बन्तवाल

श्री माधव कुलाल बी, 338 वाई 9वॉ मुख्य सड़क, द्वितीय कास 7वॉ ब्लाक, चौथा फेज बाणशंकारी तीसरा स्टेज , बैंगलोर पिन 560085 , कर्नाटक

-वही-

41. बन्तवाल

श्री कृष्णप्पा पुजारी टी. , थोटा हाऊस , ग्राम व पोस्ट बालथिला, बन्तवाल तालुक, कर्नाटक

42. 141 -बन्तवाल

-वही-

श्री शिवप्रसाद, सोत्थाड़े हाऊस , ग्राम करियान्गाला, ग्राम, बन्तवाल तालुक, कर्नाटक

-वही-

43. 142-मंगलोर

श्रीडी. एम. अस्लम, सुपुत्रडी. एम. रफीक, डी. एम. हाऊस, जे . एम. रोड, बुन्देर, मंगलोर-575001 , कर्नाटक

-वही-

44. 142- मंगलोर

श्री के. मथाई , सुपुत्रकुरियाकोसे, प्लाट सं. डी-39 , पोस्ट-मंगलागंगोत्री, कोनाजे मंगलोर, कर्नाटक

45. 142- मंगलोर

-वही-

श्री बी. विद्यानंद राव शेट, सुपुत्र बाग्ड़ाराव, बेजाई न्यूरोड, बेजाई, मंगलोर -575004, कर्नाटक 340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005 /ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (iii ,

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

46. 143- उल्लाल

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया श्री मुजफ्फर, बाँयथुत्नाज के. सी. रोड, तालापेड़ी, मंलोर तालुक, कर्नाटक

47. 146-उदीपी

-वही-

श्री नित्यानंद वोलाकाडु, आत्मज रामा सरात्य कम्पाउंड वोलाकाडु, उदीपी , कर्नाटक

48 . 155- बिरूर

विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से लेखा दाखिल नहींकिया

श्री टी. एन. माल्लेश राव , थायार स्ट्रीट तारिकेरे, कर्नाटक

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया 49 . 159-होलेहोन्नुर ( अ. जा.)

श्री डी. रामचन्द्ररप्पा, मंत्रघाट्टा, इट्टेगेहाल्ली नाल्लूर, चनागिरी, दावगेरे जिला, कर्नाटक

-वही-

50. 161-होन्नाली

श्री कृष्णमूर्ति एच. बी. , सुपुत्र एच. बी. कादासिद्दाप्पा, दोद्दागान्नारा बीदी , होन्नाली शहर, जिला रावन्नगेरे , कर्नाटक

51. 162-शिमोगा

-वही-

श्रीमति के. इन्दिराबाई, पत्नी कुदलि श्रीनिवासाचार, 43/1 , के. आर. पुरम रोड, वंदना टॉकीज के बायी ओर शिमोगा, कर्नाटक

52 164-होसानगर

-वही-

श्री एस. इलुमलाई, म. नं. 103/3 , के. आर. पुरम रोड (बांयी तरफ) , शिमोगा, कर्नाटक

-वही-

53. 167- शिकारीपुर

श्री डाँ. एम. गंगाघरप्पा, तालुक कार्यालय रोड, शिकारीपुर, कर्नाटक

-वही-

54. 183-रानीबेनन्नुर

श्री अल्लाहबक्शनीलागढ़, नीलागढ़ ओनी, जंगीमकंगल्ली, रानेबेन्नूर, कर्नाटक

-वही-

55. 185-हावेरी

श्री बंकापुर गनाशप्पा याल्लाप्पा, मनोहर टॉकीज के पास, हावेरी , कर्नाटक

-वही-

56. 187 - मुण्डारागी

श्री बदी साहदेवाप्पा, वीराप्पा , पोस्ट गवारावद तालुक, जिला गदग, कर्नाटक

57. 205 - सादत्गा

-वही-

श्री मारत देवगौडा नासलपुरे, पोस्ट, गालताग , तालुक चिक्कोडी, कर्नाटक

-वही-

58. 205 - सादत्गा

श्री मंहतेश भीतप्पा कम्बर, पोस्ट सादत्गा , तहसील चिक्कोडी, कर्नाटक [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( iii) ]

341

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16, 2005 /आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

59. 205- सादत्गा

लेखा दाखिल नहीं किया

श्री देसाई बाबासाहेब बालासाहब,

अल्लामप्रभु निवास, निप्पानी,

तालुक, चिकोड़ी, कर्नाटक

60. 205-सादतगा

-वही-

श्रीसुनीलदता मलगे, सथान पोस्टसादत्गा, तालुकचिक्कोड़ी, कर्नाटक

61. 206-चिक्कोडी ( अ. जा.)

-वही-

श्रीमती सुजाता रमेश काम्बले,

पोस्ट नसलापुर तालुका चिक्कोडी,

कर्नाटक

[ सं. 76/कर्नाटक- वि.स./2005 ]

आदेश से,

तपस कुमार, सचिव

ORDER

NewDelhi , the 7th June, 2005

O. N. 88. Whereas , the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates specified in column(3) ofthe Table below at the General Election to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, 2004 held from the Constituency specified in the column (2) against his /her name has failed to lodge an account of his/her election expenses and failed to lodge the account in the manner required by law as mentioned in column (4) of the said Table , as required by the Representation ofthe People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder ;

And, whereas, the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice to each of them and the Election Commission is satisfied that they have 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 the person specified in column (3) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being, a member of either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of 3 years from the date of this Order .

TABLE

Sl. No.

Reasons for Disqualification

Name & Address of

the Contesting Candidate

No. & Name of Assembly Constituency

1 2

Accounts not lodged 6-Basavakalyan

Sh. Shivaraj Thimmanna Bokke, R/ o Tripuarath, Tq: Basavakalyan , Dist:Bidar, Karnataka

-do-

13-Chittapur

Shri Khaumuddin Bidri ,

Jalanabad M.S.K. Mill , Gulbarga,

Karnataka

Accounts not lodged 20-Deodurg ( SC)

Shri Rangappa, Shivangi Tq. Deodurga, Karnataka.

-do-

4. 21-Raichur

Shri A. Ramanjaneyalu aliyas

ComradeRavi, H. No. 12-11-32 Arab Mohalla Raichur Karnataka .

1994-1-5-7 342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 16, 2005/ASADHA, 25 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii) ] 2

5. 22-Kalmala

Accounts not lodged

Smt. Sharanamma Devamitgra Garaladinni , Post:Garaldinni , District & Tq. Raichur, Karnataka

-do-

6. 23-Manvi

ShriMudukappa Nayak, NearNarayanateerth Ashram , Manvi , Karnataka.

-do-

7. 24-Lingsugur

Smt. Sharanamma Kamraddi , R/o Maski , Taluk Lingsugur , Karnataka.

-do-

8. 24-Lingsugur

Comrade Chinnappa Kotriki , Hirenagnur, Kamataka .

-do-

9. 25-Sindhnoor

Shri Garapati Venkataratnam, Tayamma Camp, PO : Gandhi Nagar, Tq . Sindhanur , Karnataka..

-do-

10. 28-Kanakagiri

Sh.Basavaraj Gowripura, S/o Bhimanna, Gouripur, Gangavathi Tq . District Koppal , Karnataka.

-do-

11. 39-Harapanahalli ( SC)

Smt. K. Lokamma, W/o K.S. Veerappa, Machihalli Koracharahatti, Machihalli Post, Harapanahalli Tq. Karnataka.

12. 40-Harihar

-do-

Sh. H.N. Guru, HosapeteBeedhi , Harihara- 577601, Davangere District, Karnataka.

-do-

13. 40-Hharihara

Sh . A. Marula Siddappae , Door No. 3891 , 1st Main, 1st Cross , Vidyanagar , Davangere-577004 , Karnataka.

14. Harihara

-do-

Shri M.G. Veerana Gowda, Hole Sirigere PO, Harihara Taluk, Davangere Distt, Karnataka

-do-

15. 40 -Harihaha

Sh. Jabiulla, OldBharampura, 4th Main 1st Cross , Harihara -577601 , Davangere Distt . , Karnataka.

16. 42-Mayakonda

Accounts not lodged

Sh. H. Eshwarappa , S/o Hanumanthappa, P.B. Road , Opposite ChandrodayaMill , Davangere, Karnataka.

17. 44-Chitradurga

Accounts not lodged in the manner required by law

Sh . B.H. Thippaiah Reddy, S/ o Hanumanthappa, Belagatta, Chitradurga, Taluka , Karnataka .

343 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 16 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 25 , 1927

18. 44-Chitradurga

Accounts not lodged

Shri P.R. Aravinda , S/o P. Ranagappa Reddy, Talavatti , Imangala Hobli , Hiriyur Taluk, Karnataka.

-do-

19. 45-Jagalur

Sh . K.B. Manjunatha Swamy. S/o K. Balappa, 3rd Main Road , Near Maturhi Temple , Vinobhanagar , 9th Cross , Devangere , Karnataka.

-do-

20. 45-Jagalur

Sh. K. Jayanna, S/ o Late Kittur, Kotrabasappa , Uddagatta, Jagalur Tq. Karnataka .

-do-

21. 46-Molakalmuru

Shri A.T. Parameshwarappa , Devasamudra (PO) , Molakalmuru Tq. , Chitradurga, Karnataka.

-do-

22. 81-Chamarajapet

Sh . Ananth Nag , #400, 4th Cross , 2nd Stage , 2nd Block, R.M.V. EN Ελυ n Bangalore-94 , Karnataka .

-do-

23. 87-Jayamahal

Sh. M. Zubair Ahmed , No. 13 , 3rd Cross , Marappa Garden, J.C. Nagar , Bartgalore- 560006 . Karnataka.

-do-

24. 87-Jayamahal

Simt. Kavitha D. Davis, No. 66, 7th Cross: Victoria Layout, Bangalore -560047, Karnataka.

-do-

25. 87-Jayamahal

Smt . Amudha, No. 25, 1st Cross , 1st Main Road , Pillanna Garden, 1st Stage, Bangalore - 560084, Karnataka.

-do-

26. 94-Ramanagaram

Shri Puttamasthi Gowda , S/o Late Mastigowda, Krishnapuradoddi, Rämanagaram, Taluk , Karnataka.

-do-

27. 97 -Doddaballapur

Shri M. Muniraju, S/o Munisamalah, No. 1593 . Verabhadranapalya, 2nd Ward, Dodaballapur , Karnataka.

-do-

28. 98-Devanahalli ( SC)

Shri K. Rajanna, No. 9 , Kannamangala Gate , Devanahalli Taluk-562110, Karnataka.

-do-

29. 99-Hosakote

Shri H. V. Venkabarro , 1stCross , T.G. Extension Hosakote Town - 562114 , Karnataka .

-do-

30. 104-Malavalli (SC)

K.N. Shiva -shankar, S/o . S. Nagaraju, Police Quarters , Malavalli, Karnataka .

1994 G1 /05-8 344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16 , 2005/ASADHA . 25. 1927

[PART II- SEC 3 ( iii) ] 2

31. 104 -Malavalli ( SC)

Accounts not lodged

Shri Mantya Linga . S/o Kundaiab . Settyhalli . Mallavalli Tq.. Karnataka.

-do-

32. 105-Mandya

Sh. Arif Pasha . Dr. No. 2778. 4th Cross. Gandhi Nagar. Mandya . Karnataka .

33.

-do-

107 - Srirangapatna

Shri M. Santosh . S/ o . Late . S. Mariyappa . Jain Temple Road . Srirangapatna Town . Karnataka

-do-

34. 107 - Srirangapatna

Shri Yogendra Patel Marigowda . S/ o Patel Marigowda . A. Hullukere Village . Bevinahalli Post . Kothathi Hobli , Mandya Taluk . Karuataka.

-do-

35. 112-Bannur

Shri M. Nagaraju . S/o Late .Marigowda , No.487 . Aand B Block . Kuvempunagara. Mysore- 570023 . Karnataka .

-do-

36. 116 -Narasimharaja

Smt Pushpa, No9th Main , Saraswathipuram. Mysore . Karnataka .

-do-

37. 121-Gundlupet

Shri Lakshinana Setty . S/ o Rushesetty. Oddarahalli , Village . Yaraganahally Post . Chamarajanagar Taluk . Karnataka .

-do-

38. 137 -Sullia ( SC)

St. Raja Pallamajal . S/o Babu. Pallamajalu House . B.Mooda Village , Modankapu post , Bantwala Taluk, Karnataka .

-do-

39. 130-Vittla

Sh . N. Damodara Poojary, Nidya House, Vittla Kasba Village , Bantwal Taluk , D.K. District , Karnataka .

-do-

40. 141-Bantwal

Sh . Madhava Kulal B , 338. Y 9th Main Road. IInd Cross . 7th Block , 4th Phase Banashankari . 3rd Stage, Bangalore, Pin -560085 . Karnataka.

-do-

41. 141-Bantwal

Shri Krishnappa Poojary T, Thota House, Balthila Village & post . Bantwal Taluk . Karnataka

-do-

42. 141-Bantwal

Shri Shivaprasad . Solthady House , Kariyangala Village. Bantoval Taluk , Karnataka .

-do-

43. 142-Mangalore

Shri D.M. Aslam, S/o D.M. Rafique , D.M. House . J.M. Road , Bunder, Mangalore - 575001 . Karnataka .

345 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 16, 2005/आषाढ़ 25, 1927

44. 142-Mangalore

Accounts not lodged

Sh . K. Mathai , S/o Kuria Kose, Plat No. D-39 Mangalagangothri Road, Konaje, Mangalore , Karnataka.

45.

-do-

142-Mangalore

Sh . B. Vidyananda Rao Shet , S/o Bangara Rao , Bejai New Road, Bejai ,Mangalore -575004, Karnataka.

143 -Ullal

-do-

46.

Sh .Muzafar, Bythulnaz K.C. Road , Talapady Mangalore Taluk, Karnataka .

47.

-do-

146-Udupi

Sh . Nithyananda Volakadu , S/o Rama Saralaya Compound Volakadu , Udupi , Karnataka.

48. 155-Birur

Sh . T.N. Mallesh Rao , Thayar Stree, Tarikere , Karnataka.

Accounts not lodged in the manner as required bylaw.

49. 159 -Hlehonnur ( SC)

Accounts not lodged

Sh . D. Ramachandrappa , Mantrghatta, Ittegehalli , Nallur , Chanagiri . Davangere Dist . , Karnataka .

-do-

50. 161-Honnali

Sh. Krishmamurthy H.B. , S/o H.B. Kadasiddappa Doddagannara Beedi Honnali Town , Davangere Dist . , Karnataka .

-do-

51. 162-Shimoga

Simt. K. Indirabai , W/ o Kudli Srinivasachar , 43/1 . K.R. Puram Road , Vandana Talkies. Left Side , Shimoga . Karnataka.

-do-

52. 164-Hosanagar

Shri S. Elumalai , H. No. 103/3 , K.R. Puram Road , (Left Side ) , Shimoga , Karnataka.

53.

-do-

167 -Shikaripura

Dr.M. Gangadharappa. Taluk Office Road, Shikaripura , Karnataka .

-do-

54. 183 -Ranibennur

Sh. Allabhakash Neelagar, Neclagar Oni . Jangimakangalli , Ranebennur , Karnataka .

-do-

55. 185-Haveri

Sh . Bankapur Ganashappa Yallappa, NearManohar Talkies . Haveri Karnataka .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (iii)] 346-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2005/ ASADHA, 25 , 1927

56. 187-Mundaragi

Accounts not lodged

Shri Bandi Sahadevappa Veerappa, At post Gavaravad Tq. Dist . Gadag , Karnataka .

57.

-do-

205-Sadalga

Sh .Bharat Devagouda Nasalapure , At/Post: Galataga Tal ; Chikkodi , Karnataka.

58.

-do-

205-Sadalga

Sh . Mahantesh Bhimappa Kambar, At/Post: Sadalaga Tal: Chikkodi , Karnataka.

59.

-do-

205-Sadalga

Sh . Desai Babasaheb Balasaheb , Allamprabhu Nivas , Nippani , Tal: Chikkodi , Karnataka .

-do-

60. 205-Sadalga

Sh. Sunildatta Malage , At/Post: Sadalaga , Tal : Chikkodi , Karnataka.

-do-

61. 206 -Chikkodi ( SC)

Smt . Sujatha Ramesh Kamble , At/Post-Nasalapur, Taluka - Chikkodi , Karnataka.

[No. 76/ KT -LA/2005 ]

ByOrder.

TAPAS KUMAR, Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press . Ring Road. Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .