⁄UÁ¡S≈˛UË ‚¢¯ «UË¯ ∞‹¯ (∞Ÿ) Æy/ÆÆÆ|/wÆÆxóÆz

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2011

vk-v-137-—yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951 (1951 dk 43) dh /kjk 106 ds vuqlj.k esa] fuokZpu vk;ksx ,rn~}kjk fuokZpu

vthZ la- 15@2009 esa fn;s x;s NÙkhlx<+ mPp U;k;ky;] fcykliqj ds rkjh[k 17 vxLr] 2010 ds vkns'k dks izdkf'kr djrk gS A

(fu.kZ; bl vf/lwpuk ds vaxzsth Hkkx esa Nik gS)

¹la- 82@ N-x-@(15@2009)@2011º

vkns'k ls]

ds- vt; dqekj] iz/ku lfpo

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2011

O. N. 137.—In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election

Commission hereby published Order dated the 17th August, 2010 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Election

Petition No. 15 of 2009.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

Election Petition No. 15 of 2009

Petitioner : Shambhu Prasad Sharma, aged about 62 years, S/o Late Shri Bansgopal Sharma, Village and Post

Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG).

2884 GI/2011

(211)

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 21]

ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 7—vxLr 13] 2011] [email protected] 16—Jko.k 22] 1933

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 7—AUGUST 13, 2011, MONDAY/SRAVANA 16—SRAVANA 22, 1933

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx IIó[k.M 3ómi&[k.M (iii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii)

dsUæh; vf/dkfj;ksa (la?k jkT; {ks=k iz'kkluksa dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Orders and Notifications Issued by Central Authorities (other than the Administrations of Union Territories)

212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

Versus

Respondents : 1. Returning Officer Election Office Korba, 04, Korba Lok Sabha, Area Korba, Tahsil and District

Korba (CG).

2. Shri Charan Das Mahant, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Bisahu Das Mahant, Village and Post Saragaon,

District Janjgir-Champa (CG).

3. Smt. Karuna Shukla, aged about 59 years, W/o Shri Madhav Prasad Shukla, R/o Shankar Nagar (Anand Nagar),

Tahsil & District Raipur (CG).

4. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sharma, aged about 41 years, W/o Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, Quarter No. 254/B 1, Balco

Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG).

5. Sh. Kedar Nath Rajwade, S/o Shri Hiralal Rajwade, aged about 28 years, R/o Quarter No. 175/1K, Village

Tenduwa, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG).

6. Smt. Chaiti Devi Mahant, W/o Shri Kashidas, aged about 49 years, R/o N.D. 26-CSEB, East Korba (CG).

7. Shri Budhwar Singh Uikey, S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o Korbi, Post Suttarra, Tahsil Podi-

up-Roda, District Korba (CG).

8. Dr. Shri Vipin Sinha, S/o Shri R.P. Sinha, aged about 40 years, R/o B-70 CMPDI Colony, Post Kusmunda,

District Korba (CG).

9. Smt. Sangita Nirmalkar, W/o Shri Ram Bahoran, aged about 32 years, R/o Quarter No. 17, Ward No. 35, Torwa,

Bilaspur (CG).

10. Shri Hira Singh Markam, S/o Late Shri Deo Sai Markam, aged about 74 years, R/o Village and Post Tiwrata,

Tahsil Pali, District Korba (CG).

11. Shri Gend Das Mahant, S/o Shri Girwar Das Mahant, aged about 35 years, R/o Kashi Nagar Korba,

Ward No. 16, Quarter No. 105/K, Tahsil and District Korba (CG).

12. Shri Charan Das Panika, S/o Shri Hari Das Panika, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Kendai Khar, Post Jamni

Pali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG).

13. Shri Pawan Kumar, S/o Shri Matadeen, aged about 38 years, R/o Pali Road, Dipika, Tahsil Katghora, District

Korba (CG).

14. Shri Kuleshwar Prasad Sarajaiha, S/o Shri Ramnath, aged about 75 years, R/o Village Gajra, Post Banki Mongra,

Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG).

15. Shri Ram Dayal Uraon, S/o Late Shri Anandram, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Pathadhi, Post Tilkeja, Tahsil

and District Korba (CG).

16. Shri Ram Lakhan Kashi, S/o Late Shri Mandhari Kashi, aged about 68 years, R/o Gram Nagar, Post Nagar Tahsil

Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG).

17. Smt. Satrupa, W/o Late Shri Ramashankar, aged about 37 years, R/o G-19, Narbada Nagar Asindda, Tahsil

Khandawa, District Khandawa (MP).

18. Shri Santosh Banjare, S/o Shri Netram Banjare, aged about 25 years, R/o Ekta Nagar, Quarter No. 380,

Khongha Pani, District Koriya (CG) 497447.

Present :

Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari with Shri Ram Krishna Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Counsel for respondent No. 1.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No. 2.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1933

213

ORDER

(Passed on 17th August, 2010)

DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J.

1. Heard on I. A. No. 1.

2. By this application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 86 (1) of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1951’ ) the respondent No. 2 has prayed for

dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the petition does not disclose any cause of notion and there is

non-compliance of Sections 81 and 82 of the Act of 1951.

3. The petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 2 as a Member of Parliament from the

Parliamentary Constituency No. 4, Korba in the genera1 election held in the year 2009 on the ground that all other

candidates including respondent No.2, the elected candidate, did not file affidavits in Form No. 3 K-(III) showing debts

and dues of the Government and thus, nomination papers filed by them were incomplete and invalid within the meaning

of Section 33-A and 33-B of the Act of 1951 and their nomination was liable to be rejected during scrutiny by respondent

No.1. Respondent No.1 vide its order dated 31st January, 2009 rejected the objection of the petitioner against accepting

nomination papers of respondents No. 2 to 18.

4. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner

has failed to plead the material fact and material particulars and averments in the petition do not disclose any cause of

action. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Versus Association For Democratic Reforms and another

reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 issued certain directions in paragraph-48 of the judgment and the Commission was directed

to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly, as

necessary part of his nomination paper furnishing therein information regarding assets (immovable, movable, bank

balance etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of the dependents, apart from other information. In, compliance

of the aforesaid directions, the Election Commission of India (for brevity ‘the ECI’) issued an order on

26-8-2002 directing every candidate that while filing nomination papers they would submit an affidavit with regard to all

the 5 matters mentioned in paragraph-48 of the Supreme Court’s order dated 2nd May, 2002. However, in view of the

subsequent order of the Supreme Court passed in the matter of People’s Union. For Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another

Versus Union of India and another, (2003) 4 SCC 399, the ECI in supersession of its earlier order dated 28-6-2002 issued

fresh order on 27-3-2003. From perusal of the order of the Supreme Court dated 2nd May, 2002 and the circular issued in

compliance thereof, it is clear that a candidate is required to file affidavit with regard to “Liabilities, if any, particularly

whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues”. In the absent of any specific

averment in the election petition regarding undischarge liability of public financial institution or government dues, the

petition is lacking in material facts and particulars and the same does not disclose any cause of action and the petition

deserves to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner has also not pleaded or filed the objection taken by him before the

returning officer for rejection of nomination papers of other candidates. From perusal of the order of the returning officer

dated 31st March, 2009. (Annexure-P/3) by which objection against the nomination papers of other candidates has been

rejected, it is evident that the Returning Officer after examining record found the objections factually incorrect. The

petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of incorrect verification, as pleadings in the petition are based on

personal knowledge of the petitioner whereas, issue raised by the petitioner is to be verified only on the basis of

information on record. Lastly, it was argued that the petition is also liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of the parties, as

the petitioner has impleaded returning officer as respondent No.1.

5. A specific preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of respondent No.1 that returning officer cannot be

arrayed as party in an election petition in view of the specific provisions under Section 82 of the Act of 1951, which deals

with parties to the petition. However, the petitioner has asserted that respondent No.1 is a necessary party and has not

moved any application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 from the array of the respondents and has only stated

that the petitioner is ready to obey any order pertaining to deletion of respondent No. 1. It was further argued that

annexures and documents filed by the petitioner have not been properly verified as required under Section 83 (2) of the

Act of 1951.

6. On the other hand, Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted

that the ECI in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Association For Democratic Reforms

and another (judgment dated 2nd May, 2002), directed that every candidate in election while filing nomination paper shall

submit an affidavit in prescribed format annexed as Schedule I. It was specifically mentioned that non-filing of affidavit in

the format (Annexure-P/6) along with nomination paper would constitute contempt of the Supreme Court and returning

214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

officer shall reject the nomination paper at the time of scrutiny (Annexure-P/2, para-5). Respondents No. 2 to 18 did not file

affidavit in the prescribed format (Annexure-P/6). The petitioner filed an objection before the returning officer at the time

of scrutiny on 30th March, 2009 for rejecting heir nomination papers, however, objection of the petitioner was rejected

vide Annexure-P/3. Acceptance of nomination papers of respondents No. 2 to 18 is contrary to the provisions of Section

100 (1)( d) (i) (iv) of the Act of 1951. The only objection of the petitioner against acceptance of nomination papers of other

candidates is that they did not file affidavit in the format (Annexure-P/6) which is mandatory requirement, as per orders of

the Election Commission dated 28th June, 2002 and 27th March, 2003, which were issued in compliance of the directions

of the Supreme Court. It is not the allegation of the petitioner that other candidates have any undischarged liability

towards public financial institution or Government loan and, therefore, objection regarding lack of material pleadings with

respect to such allegations does not arise. So far as other objections regarding defect of verification of the pleadings and

documents is concerned, election petition cannot be dismissed in limine only on this ground and such defects may be

subsequently rectified. Even otherwise, allegations in the petition and documents annexed with the petition have been

duly verified by the petitioner. The petitioner has already undertaken to delete the name of respondent No.1 from the array

of the respondents and, therefore, election petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of the parties.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the election petition and the documents annexed with

this petition.

8. From perusal of the order of the returning officer (Annexure-P/3) whereby objection of the petitioner raised at

the time of scrutiny of nomination papers against nomination papers filed by other candidates has been rejected, it

appears that the petitioner contended before the returning officer that other candidates have not annexed their affidavits

in form-3 (ka)(lII) apart from other objections. The returning officer after examination of the nomination papers observed

that the candidates have filed affidavits along with their nomination papers and signed before him as per directions of the

Election Commission in the prescribed format (Annexure-22). After scrutiny, he did not find any fact/basis which goes

contrary to the directions of the Election Commission.

9. Referring to the direction contained in Chapter-VI (para-10.1) of handbook of the Returning Officer, it has been

observed that where an affidavit has been filed, in that case, nomination paper cannot be rejected on the ground that it is

incomplete or defective. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor filed objections submitted by him before the returning

officer on 30th March, 2009 against nomination papers of other candidates. He has also not filed affidavits/nomination

papers filed by the other candidates which finds reference in the order of Annexure-P/3 by which his objection has been

rejected.

10. In Association For Democratic Reforms and another (Supra), the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of the

Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the word

“elections” is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces

many steps. Interpreting Article 324 of the Constitution of India, it has been held that Article 324 is a reservoir of power to

act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair elections. The Constitution has taken care of leaving scope for exercise

of residuary power by the Commission in its own right as a creature of the Constitution in the infinite variety of situations

that may emerge from time to time in a large democracy, as every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated by the

enacted laws or the rules. By issuing, necessary directions, the Commission can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on

the subject. In para-48 of the above judgment, it has been observed thus :-

“The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of

its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State

Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in

relation to his/her candidature :

(1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past—if any, whether

he is punished with imprisonment or fine.

(2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any

offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the

court of law. If so, the details thereof.

(3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of

dependents.

(4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any overdues of any public financial institution or

government dues.

(5) The educational qualifications of the candidate.”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1933

215

11. The Act of 1951 was amended vide the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002

(4 of 2002), promulgated on 24-8-2002. Later on the Ordinance was replaced by the Representation of the People (Third

Amendment) Act, 2002 (72 of 2002), which came into force w.e.f. 28th December, 2002 and Sections 33-A and 33-B was

inserted. Constitutional validity of Section 33-B was challenged and the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated

13th March, 2003 in the case of People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another (Supra), held that Section 33-B

inserted in the Act of 1951 by amendment does not pass the test of Constitutionality and the same was declared invalid

being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

12. In the light of directions contained in the case of People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another

(Supra), the Election Commission of India in Chapter V of Annexure-X of the Handbook For Returning Officers ordered in

paragraphs-16 and 17 as under :

“16. Now therefore, the Election Commission, in pursuance of the above referred order dated 13th March, 2003.

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 324 of the Constitution, of

superintendence, direction and control, inter alia, of conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures,

hereby issues, in supersession of its earlier order dated, 28th June, 2002, its revised directions as follows :-

(1) Every candidate at the time of filing his nomination paper for any election to the Council of

States, House of the People; Legislative Assembly of a State or the Legislative Council of a State having such

a council, shall furnish full and complete information in regard to the matters specified by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and quoted in paras 13 and 14 above, in an affidavit, the format whereof is annexed hereto as

Annexure-1 to this order.

(2) The said affidavit by each candidate shall be duly sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or

a Notary Public or a Commissioner of Oaths appointed by the High Court of the State concerned.

(3) Non-furnishing of the affidavit by any candidate shall be considered to be violation of the order

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the nomination of the candidate concerned shall be liable to rejection by

the returning officer at the time of scrutiny of nominations for such non-furnishing of the affidavit.

(4) The information so furnished by each candidate in the aforesaid affidavit shall be disseminated

by the respective returning officers by displaying a copy of the affidavit on the notice board of his office and

also by making the copies thereof available freely and liberally to all other candidates and the representatives

of the print and electronic media.

(5) If any rival candidate furnishes information to the contrary, by means of a duly sworn affidavit,

then such affidavit of the rival candidate shall also be disseminated along with the affidavit of the candidate

concerned in the manner directed above.

17. For the removal of doubt, it is hereby clarified that the earlier direction contained in para 14 (4) of the earlier

order dated 28th June, 2002, in so far as verification of assets and liabilities by means of summary enquiry and

rejection of nomination paper on the ground of furnishing wrong information or suppressing material information

is not enforceable in pursuance of the order dated 13th March, 2003 of the Apex Court. It is further clarified that

apart from the affidavit in Annexure-1 hereto referred to in para 16(1) above, the candidate shall have to comply

with all the other requirements as spelt out in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by the

Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, as amended

by the Conduct of Elections (Amendment ) Rules, 2002.”

13 From perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Association For Democratic Reforms and

another (Supra) (Paragraph-48) and directions issued by the ECI in pursuance thereof on 28-6-2002 and 27th March, 2003,

it is clear that every candidate was required to file information with respect to liabilities, if any, particularly whether there

are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues in the format appended as Annexure-I with the

order dated 27th March, 2003 of the ECI.

14. From perusal of the order of Annexure-P/3, it is clear that affidavits have been sworn in by respondents

No. 2 to 18 and the returning officer did not find any defects in the affidavits as per orders/directions of the Election

Commission, on the basis of which their nomination papers could be rejected. Disclosures about undischarged liability

towards public financial institutions or Government loan, if any, are to be made in the format enclosed with the order

dated 27th March, 2003 of the ECI.

15. From perusal of Annexure-P/3, I have also observed that returning officer rejected the objection of the

petitioner and accepted the nomination papers of other candidates as valid by observing that necessary affidavits in the

prescribed format have been submitted by them. The petitioner has not filed affidavits of other candidates and it is not the

allegation of the petitioner that respondents No. 2 to 18 have any undischarged liability towards public financial institutions

216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

or any Government loan. In the absence of any material fact to establish that other candidates did not file necessary

affidavit in format Annexure-I appended with the order dated 27th March, 2003, and keeping in view the order of

Annexure-P/3, which reveals that other candidates had submitted affidavits in the prescribed format as per guidelines of

the ECI, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that even if the entire allegations

present in the petition is accepted, the same does not disclose any cause of action to the petitioner and there is no triable

issue before this Court for adjudication of this election petition.

16. The only ground urged in the election petition is that respondent No. 2 to 18 did not submit necessary

information on affidavit in the prescribed format as per para-3(A) of Annexure-I annexed with the order dated

27th March, 2003 of the ECI. The affidavits filed by other candidates have not been annexed with the petition nor there is

any specific pleading in this regard. Respondent No.2 in his return, in para-8.4, in reply to para-5 of the petition, has

specifically denied the above allegation and has specifically averred that the answering respondent has filed the affidavit

as required under the law. In spite of above specific denial of respondent No.2, the petitioner has failed to supply

necessary material particulars to establish that affidavits sworn by other candidates were not in accordance with the

requirement of the order of the ECI dated 27th March, 2003 or they were not in format of Annexure-I.

17. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to disclose all material

facts on which the election petitioner relies to establish the existence of a cause of action. In the absence of material facts

and insufficient cause of action, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. It is a settled legal position that an election

petition must clearly and unambiguously set out all the material facts which the petitioner is to rely upon during the trial,

and it must reveal a clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should disclose a definite cause of action. In the

absence of the above, an election petition can be summarily dismissed, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the matter of Laxmi Kant Bajpai Versus Hazi Yaqoob & Others 2009 (8) Supreme 129.

18. ln view of the aforesaid finding it is not necessary to consider other issues raised by the respondents.

19. In the result, the application is allowed. The election petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner

has failed to disclose all material facts on which he relies to establish the existence of a cause of action.

Sd/-

DHIRENDRA MISHRA :

Judge

[ No. 82/CGH/(15/2009)/2011]

By Order,

K. AJAY KUMAR, Pr. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vxLr] 2011

vk-v- 138-—yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951 (1951 dk 43) dh /kjk 106 ds vuqlj.k esa] fuokZpu vk;ksx ,rn~}kjk fuokZpu

vthZ la- 4@1999 esa fn;s x;s >kj[k.M mPp U;k;ky;] jkaph ds rkjh[k 28 vxLr] 2010 ds vkns'k dks izdkf'kr djrk gS A

(fu.kZ; bl vf/lwpuk ds vaxzsth Hkkx esa Nik gS A)

¹la- 82@>kj-@(4@1999)@2011º

vkns'k ls]

ds- vt; dqekj] iz/ku lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2011

O. N. 138.—In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election

Commission hereby published Order dated the 28th August, 2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Jharkhand, Ranchi in

Election Petition No. 4 of 1999.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1933

217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

Election Petition No. 4 of 1999 (R)

Indra Nath Bhagat...............................................................................................................................................................Petitioner(s)

Versus

Dukha Bhagat

Bhubaneshwar Lohra

Vishwanath Bhagat

Sophia Kachap

Amar Oraon

Jai Prakash Minz

Harihar Ram Nath Oraon

Biga Minz........................................................................ ............................................................... ....................Respondent(s)

--------

Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. K. Sinha

-------

For the Petitioner(s)

M/s. Delip Jerath, S. N. Prasad and

S. K. Dwivedi, Advocates.

For the Respondent(s)

M/s. Ajay Kr. Singh, P. Khakha,

Rana Sujit Singh, Neeraj Ranjan,

Ram Lakhan Yadav and R. K. Prasad, Advocates.

21/28-8-2010

It is evident from the order dated 4-4-2002 that the election petition has already been abated on the death of the

sole petitioner for which registry was directed to take steps for publication in the Official Gazette.

I find that the notice under Section 112 of the Representation of Peoples Act was published in the Extraordinary

Jharkhand Gazette dated 27th April, 2002 with respect to the abatement of the present election petition on the death of Indra

Nath Bhagat petitioner in the instant Election Petition No. 4 of 1999(R).

Accordingly, this election petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(D. K. SINHA, J.)

[No. 82/JKD/(4/1999)/2011]

By Order,

K. AJAY KUMAR, Pr. Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2011

vk-v- 139-—;r% Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx dk lek/ku gks x;k gS fd uhps dh lkj.kh ds LraHk (2) esa ;Fkkfofu£n"V vle jkT; esa

yksd lHkk ds fy, lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2009 ds fy, tks LraHk (3) esa fofu£n"V fuokZpu {ks=k ls gqvk gS] LraHk (4) esa mlds lkeus fofu£n"V

fuokZpu yM+us okyk izR;sd vH;FkhZ] yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951] rFkk r¼hu cuk, fu;eksa }kjk visf{kr mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk (5)

esa ;Fkkfofu£n"V vius fuokZpu&O;;ksa dk ys[kk nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs_ vkSj

;r% fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk mDr vH;£Fk;ksa dks lE;d~ lwpuk fn, tkus ij Hkh mDr vliQyrk ds fy, ;k rks dksbZ dkj.k vFkok

Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k gS vFkok muds }kjk fn, x, vH;kosnu ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;fn dksbZ gks] rks fuokZpu vk;ksx dk ;g lek/ku

gks x;k gS fd mDr vliQyrk ds fy, muds ikl dksbZ mi;qDr dkj.k ;k U;k;kSfpR; ugha gS_

218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

vr%] vc] fuokZpu vk;ksx] yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951 dh /kjk 10&d ds vuqlj.k esa] uhps dh lkj.kh ds LraHk (4) esa

fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa dks laln ds fdlh Hkh lnu ds ;k fdlh jkT;@la?k jkT; {ks=k dh fo/ku lHkk vFkok fo/ku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; pqus tkus vkSj

gksus ds fy,] bl vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh dkykof/ ds fy, fuj£gr ?kksf"kr djrk gS A

lkj.kh

Ø-la-

fuokZpu dk fooj.k

lalnh; fuokZpu {ks=k

fuokZpu yM+us okys

fujgZrk dk dkj.k

dh Øe la[;k vkSj

vH;FkhZ dk uke vkSj

uke

irk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vle jkT; ls yksd lHkk ds fy,

14&y[kheiqj lalnh;

Jh nscukFk ek>h]

vius fuokZpu O;;ksa dk ys[kk

lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2009

fuokZpu {ks=k

xzke&xqVhckM+h]

nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs A

Fkkuk&ikuhrqyk]

ftyk rhulqfd;k]

vle&786183

&ogh&

Jh iz.kT;ksfr cksik=kkxksgs

&ogh&

xzke&fcyksfr;k]

iks-&ekp[kksack]

Fkkuk&/sekth]

vle A

&ogh&

Jh jrus'oj xksxksb

&ogh&

xzke&la[;k 3]

eqjdksax lhysd]

iks- ,oa Fkkuk tksukbZ]

ftyk /sekth] vle A

&ogh&

Jh yfyr fefy]

&ogh&

xzke&ekykfiUnk]

fe¯lx xk¡o]

iks-&deyiqj]

Fkkuk&xkjkeqj] eqtyh]

ftyk&tksjgkV] vle A

¹la- 76@vle&yksd lHkk@2009º

vkns'k ls]

ds- ,u- Hkkj] lfpo

ORDER

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2011

O. N. 139.—Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates

specified in column 4 of the Table below at the General Election to the House of Peoples, 2009 in the Assam State 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;

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1933

219

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

Paliament 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 :—

TABLE

Sl.

Particulars of Election

No. and Name of

Name and Address of Reasons for Disqualification

No.

Assembly

Contesting Candidate

Constituency

General Election to the 14-Lakhimpur PC

Sri Debnath Majhi,

Failed to lodge account of his

Lok Sabha, 2009 from the

Vill-Gutibari ,

election expenses at all.

state of Assam.

P.S. Panitula,

Distt. Tinsukia,

Assam-786183.

-do-

Sri Pranjyoti

-do-

Borpatragohain,

Vill. Bilotia

P.O. Machkhowa,

P.S. Dhemaji,

Dist. Dhemaji, Assam.

-do-

Sh. Ratneswar Gogoi,

–do–

Vill. No. 3 Murkong

Selek, P. O. & P.S.

Jonai, Distt.

Dhemaji, Assam.

-do-

Shri Lalit Mili,

–do–

Vill. Malapindha

Mising Gaon,

P.O. Kamalpur,

P. S. Garamur,

Majuli, Distt. Jorhat,

Assam.

[No. 76/AS-HP/2009]

By Order,

K. N. BHAR, Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2011

vk-v- 140-—;r% Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx dk lek/ku gks x;k gS fd flfDde fo/ku lHkk fuokZpu {ks=k ds lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2009

ds fy, 18 if'pe isUMe (v-tk-) fo/ku lHkk fuokZpu {ks=k ls fuokZpu yM+us okys vH;FkhZ Jh ftreu njth] yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e]

1951 rFkk r¼hu cuk, fu;eksa ,oa vkns'kksa }kjk visf{kr vius fuokZpu&O;;ksa dk ys[kk nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs_ vkSj

;r% mDr vH;FkhZ Jh ftreu njth us lE;d~ lwpuk fn, tkus ij Hkh mDr vliQyrk ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ;k Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k

gS] vkSj fuokZpu vk;ksx dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd muds ikl mDr vliQyrk ds fy, dksbZ i;kZIr dkj.k ;k U;k;kSfpR; ugha gS_

vr%] vc] fuokZpu vk;ksx] yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951 dh /kjk 10&d ds vuqlj.k esa] Jh ftreu njth dks laln ds fdlh

Hkh lnu ds ;k fdlh jkT;@la?k jkT; {ks=k dh fo/ku lHkk vFkok fo/ku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; pqus tkus vkSj gksus ds fy, bl vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kZ dh dkykof/ ds fy, fuj£gr ?kksf"kr djrk gS A

¹la- 76@flfDde@fo/ku lHkk@2009º

vkns'k ls]

ds- ,u- Hkkj] lfpo

220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2011

O. N. 140.—Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that Shri Jit Man Darjee, a contesting

candidate in the General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2009 from 18-West Pendum (SC) Assembly Constituency has

failed to lodge any account of his election expenses, as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules

and Orders made there under; and

Whereas, the said candidate, Shri Jit Man Darjee, has not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure

even after due notice and the Election Commission is thus satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for the said

failure ;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election

Commission hereby declares Shri Jit Man Darjee, 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 :—

[No. 76/SKM-LA/2009]

By Order,

K. N. BHAR, Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2011

vk-v- 141-—;r% fuokZpu vk;ksx dk lek/ku gks x;k gS fd uhps dh lkj.kh ds LrEHk 2 esa ;Fkk fofu£n"V dukZVd jkT; esa

fo/ku lHkk ds lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2008 ds fy, tks LrEHk 3 esa fofu£n"V fuokZpu {ks=k ls gqvk gS] LrEHk 4 esa mlds lkeus fofu£n"V fuokZpu

yM+us okys izR;sd vH;FkhZ] yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951] rFkk r¼hu cuk, X, fu;eksa }kjk visf{kr mDr lkj.kh ds LrEHk 5 esa ;Fkk

n£'kr vius fuokZpu O;;ksa dk ys[kk nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs gSa_ vkSj

;r%] fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk mDr vH;£Fk;ksa] dks lE;d~ lwpuk fn, tkus ij Hkh mDr vliQyrk ds fy, ;k rks dksbZ dkj.k vFkok

Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gS vkSj fuokZpu vk;ksx dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd mDr vliQyrk ds fy, muds ikl dksbZ mi;qDr dkj.k ;k

U;k;kSfpR; ugha gS_

vr%] vc] fuokZpu vk;ksx mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10(d) ds vuqlj.k esa] uhps dh lkj.kh ds LrEHk 4 esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa dks

laln ds fdlh lnu ds ;k fdlh jkT;@la?k jkT; {ks=k dh fo/ku lHkk vFkok fo/ku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; gksus ;k pqus tkus vkSj gksus ds fy, bl

vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh dkykof/ ds fy, fuj£gr ?kksf"kr djrk gS A

lkj.kh

Ø-la-

fuokZpu dk fooj.k

fo/ku lHkk fuokZpu

fuokZpu yM+us okys

fujgZrk dk dkj.k

{ks=k dh Øe la[;k

vH;FkhZ dk uke vkSj

vkSj uke

irk

dukZVd fo/ku lHkk ds fy,

45&xqycxkZ mÙkj

Jh panzdkar vkj- dkyxh

fuokZpu O;;ksa dk dksbZ Hkh ys[kk

lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2008

iksLV % 14@5 fgIijxk

nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs A

rkYyqd % cklodY;k.k

ftyk % chnj

&ogh&

79&HkkVdy

Jh 'ksV~Vh fxjh'kk yksds'oj

&ogh&

ih-vks- csaxjs

rkYyqd] HkkVdy

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1933

221

dukZVd fo/ku lHkk ds fy,

79&HkkVdy

Jh ,l- ,e- tdfj;k

fuokZpu O;;ksa dk dksbZ Hkh ys[kk

lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2008

lchuk gkÅl

nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs A

,u-,p- 17

rkYyqd % HkkVdy

&ogh&

80&fljlh

Jh jkeukFk gsxM+s

&ogh&

LFkku % dqyhgkdyw]

ih-vks-&eV~Vh?kV~Vk

rkyqd % fljlh&581403

(;w ds)

&ogh&

80&fljlh

Jh dukM+s jkenkl osadIik

&ogh&

ckiwth uxj]

;sykiqj jksM

fljlh&581402 (;w ds)

&ogh&

81&;sykiqj

Jh lqjs'k uhxIik iqtj

&ogh&

LFkku % dhjkoV~Vh

rkyqd % ;sykiqj

&ogh&

133&Vqedqj xzkeh.k

lS;n eqdcqy vgen

&ogh&

13oka ØkWl] uhegjk

efLtn] ih-,p- dkWyksuh]

Vqedqj

&ogh&

133&Vqedqj xzkeh.k

Jh duM+kdank jkeew£r ,p-

&ogh&

(jkeew£r xkSM+k)

la- 27] 6oka esu jksM

,p-oh-vkj- ys vkmV]

xks¯onjkt uxj] caxykSj

&ogh&

137&ikokxkMk

Jh dsupIik

&ogh&

(v-tk)

lqiq=k HkhekIik MksMsukgYyh

rkyqd] ikokxkMk

10-

&ogh&

137&ikokxkMk

Jh ih-,- xks¯cnkjktw

&ogh&

(v-tk)

lqiq=k ih- vatkuIik

jsuxsat ,DlVsa'ku

rkyqd] ikokxkMk

11-

&ogh&

137&ikokxkMk

Jh Fkkokjsukbd

&ogh&

(v-tk)

lqiq=k&xfu;kukbd

nsokMkosV~Vk]

rkyqd] ikokxkMk

12-

&ogh&

137&ikokxkMk

Jh ,l-th- Jhfuokl

&ogh&

(v-tk)

lqiq=k&fxjh;kIik

'kSykiqjk]

rkyqd] ikokxkMk

13-

&ogh&

186&ekykoYyh

Jh ,e- izlUuk

&ogh&

(v-tk)

lqiq=k&,e- pfUu;k

ekfyukFkkiqjk o iksLV

rkyqd ekykoYyh

222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

14-

dukZVd fo/ku lHkk ds fy,

186&ekykoYyh

Jh ,p-th- lkse 'ks[kj

fuokZpu O;;ksa dk dksbZ Hkh ys[kk

lk/kj.k fuokZpu] 2008

(v-tk)

lqiq=k&Lo- xkaxk/fj;k

nkf[ky djus esa vliQy jgs A

xzke o iksLV&gqldqj

rkyqd ekykoYyh

15-

&ogh&

187&eM~Mqj

Jh f'ko:eS;k

&ogh&

lqiq=k&Lo- dapuxksoMk

dadjiqjk] rkyqd eM~Mqj

16-

&ogh&

189&ek.M;k

Jh vkj- ;ksxs'k

&ogh&

'kaHkwxksoMk] la- 4522

10oka Økl

'kadj uxj ek.M;k

17-

&ogh&

190&JhjaxkiVuk

Jh panz'ks[kjkIik ds-

&ogh&

lqiq=k&dqYysxksoM+k] 94,]

6oka esu jksM ukxsUnz Cykd

cuk'kadjh rhljh LVst]

caxykSj&50

18-

&ogh&

194&vjlhdsjs

Jh ch-,u- jes'k

&ogh&

lqiq=k&¯uxIik okysgYyh

cSjkiqjk (oh- cSjkiqjk)

iks- ukxleqMk]

rkyqd vjlhdsjs

19-

&ogh&

197&gksysujlhiqj

Jh ds-,p- lrh'k

&ogh&

lqiq=k&gkseoS;k

tkSMhÑ".kiqjk xzke]

iks- dksjkokxky] MqM~MkgksYyh

rkyqd glu

20-

&ogh&

197&gksysujlhiqj

Jh ,u- f'ko Lokeh

&ogh&

lqiq=k&,p- usaxsxkSoMk

xzke&mYyykyq

rkyqd&mÙkj cSaxyksj

21-

&ogh&

203&eaxyksj 'kgj

Jh /esZUnz ds-

&ogh&

nf{k.k

dqejk jslhMsalh

nwljk ry] ysMh fgy]

eaxyksj

¹la- 76@dukZVd&fo-l-@2008º

vkns'kkFkZ]

vkj-ds- JhokLro] iz/ku lfpo

ORDER

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2011

O. N. 141.—Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate

in column 3 of the Table below at the General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2008 from Karnataka Assembly

Constituency of specified in column 2 against their names have failed to lodge the account of their election expenses in

manner as shown in column 4 of the said Table as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules

made thereunder ;

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1933

223

And whereas, the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even

after receiving Election Commission’s notice, 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 Paliament 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 :—

TABLE

Sl.

Particulars of Election

Sl. No. & Name of

Name & Address of Contesting

Reasons for Disquali-

No.

Assembly

Candidate

fication

Constituency

General Elections to

45-Gulbarga

Sh. Chandrakant R. Kalagi

Failed to lodge any

Karnataka Legislative

Uttar

At Post : 14/5, Hipparga (Bag)

account of his election

Assembly, 2008

Tq.: Basavakalyan,

expenses.

Dist : Bidar

-do-

79-Bhatkal

Sh. Shetty Girisha Lokeshwar

-do-

Po: Bengre,

Tq.: Bhatkal

-do-

79-Bhatkal

Sh. S. M. Zakriya,

-do-

Sabina House,

N. H. 17, Tq : Bhatkal

-do-

80-Sirsi

Sh. Ramanatha Hegde

-do-

At : Kulihaklu,

PO : Mattighatta

Tq: Sirsi-581403 (U.K.)

-do-

80-Sirsi

Sh. Kanade Ramadas

-do-

Venkappa,

Bapuji Nagar, Yellapur Road,

Sirsi-581402 (U.K.)

-do-

81-Yellapur

Sh. Suresh Ningappa Pujar

-do-

At : Kirawatti,

Tq : Yellapur

-do-

133-Tumkur Rural

Syed Mukbul Ahamed,

-do-

13th Cross, Near Nimhra

Masjid, P. H. Colony, Tumkur

-do-

133-Tumkur Rural

Sh. Kannadakanda

-do-

Ramamurthy. H,

(Ramamurthy Gowda)

No.27, 6th Main Road,

H. V.R. Layout,

Govindarajanagara

Bangalore.

-do-

137-Pavagada (SC)

Sh. Kenchappa,

-do-

S/o Bheemappa Doddenahalli

Pavagada Tq.

10.

-do-

137-Pavagada (SC)

Sh. P.A. Govindaraju,

-do-

S/o P. Anjanappa

Raingauge Extension,

Pavagada Tq.

224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2011/SRAVNA 22, 1933

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

11.

General Election to

137-Pavagada (SC)

Sh. Thavarenaika,

Failed to lodge any

Karnataka Legislative

S/o Ganiyanaika

account of his election

Assembly, 2008

Davadabetta, Pavagada Tq.

expenses.

12.

-do-

137-Pavagada (SC)

Sh. S.G. Srinivasa,

-do-

S/o Giriyappa

Shailapura

Pavagada Tq.

13.

-do-

186-Malavalli (SC)

Sh. M. Prasanna,

-do-

S/o M. Channaiah,

Mallinatha pura & Post

Malavalli Taluk

14.

-do-

186-Malavalli (SC)

Sh. H.G. Somashekar,

-do-

S/o Late Gangadariah,

Huskur Village & Post

Malavalli Taluk

15.

-do-

187-Maddur

Sh. Shivaramaiah,

-do-

S/o Late Kenchegowda,

Shankarapura, Maddur Taluk

16.

-do-

189-Mandya

Sh. R. Yogesh @ Shankaranagar,

-do-

No. 4522, 10th Cross,

Shambugowda,

Mandya.

17.

-do-

190-Srirangapatna

Sh. Chandrashekarappa. K.

-do-

S/o Kullegowda, 94A, 6th

Main Road Nagendra Block,

Banashankari 3rd Stage,

Bangalore-50

18.

-do-

194-Arasikere

Sh. B. N. Ramesh,

-do-

S/o Ningappa, Valehalli,

Bairapura. (V. Bairapura)

Nagasamudra post,

Arsikere Taluk

19.

-do-

197-Holenarsipura

Sh. K. H. Sathish,

-do-

S/o Hombaiah,

Jodikrishnapura Village,

Koravanagal Post,

Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk

20.

-do-

197-Holenarsipura

Sh. N. Shivaswamy,

-do-

S/o H. Ningegowda,

Ullalu Village,

Bangalore North Taluk

21.

-do-

203-Mangalore

Sh. Dharmendra K

-do-

City South

Kumara Residency,

2nd Floor, Ladyhill,

Mangalore

[No. 76/KT-LA/2008]

By Order

R. K. SRIVASTAVA, Principal Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.