This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007 /2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल . ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 2 ]

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 13 जनवरी 19 , 2013 , शनिवार /पौष 23-पौष 29 , 1934

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 13 JANUARY 19, 2013 , SATURDAY/PAUSA 23- PAUSA 29 , 1934 No. 2]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक 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 )

अधिकारियों ( संघ राज्य क्षेत्र प्रशासनों को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं केन्द्रीय Orders and Notifications Issued by Central Authorities (other than the Administrations of Union Territories)

भारत निर्वाचन आयोग

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जनवरी , 2013

आ.अ. 5.-यतः , भारत निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट गोवा विधान सभा के साधारण निर्वाचन, 2012 में स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से उनके नाम के सामने स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी, उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ 5 में दर्शाए गए अनुसार लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं ;

और यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थी ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् नोटिस दिए जाने के बाद भी उक्त असफलता के लिए या तो कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है अथवा उनके द्वारा दिए गए अभ्यावेदन पर , यदि कोई हो, विचार करने के बाद , निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई उचित कारण अथवा न्यायोचित्य नहीं है;

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10क के अनुसरण में निर्वाचन आयोग , एतद्द्वारा , यह घोषणा करता है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ 4 में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्ति, राज्य की विधान परिषद् अथवा विधान सभा अथवा संसद के दोनों सदनों अथवा संघ राज्य क्षेत्र में सदस्य चुने जाने अथवा होने के लिए इस आदेश की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए निरर्हित किए जाते हैं :---

84 GI/2013

(13) 14

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934

[PART II SEC . 3 (iii ) ]

सारणी

निर्वाचन का विवरण

क्रम सं.

विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र कानाम एवं संख्या

निरर्हता का कारण निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी

का नाम एवं पता

(1)

(2)

(3)

2-पेडणे

(अ.जा.)

गोवाविधानसभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2012

2. -वही-

4-थिवी

(4)

(5)

राजन कांबली

घर नं. 60/18 , खालचावाडा, विरनोडापेडणे-गोवा

अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे ।

-वही-

दत्ताराम गोविंद सावंत घर नं. 18अ ,कोठंबे , वरचावाडा, पाले , डीचोले-गोवा

3. -वही-

6-शिवोली

-वही-

अभिजीत धारगलकर घर नं. 1074 ,मधले , भाट , शिवोली, बार्डेज- गोवा

4. -वही-

11- पणजी

-वही-

डोमिनिक सावियो ए. ई. फर्नाडिस

प्लॉट नं. 34 , लेक व्यूकॉलोनी , मिरामार, पणजी-गोवा

5. -वही-

12-तालगांव

-वही-

संजय सी. कोरगांवकर घर नं. 409 , काबेसा , सांता क्रुज , इल्हास- गोवा

6. -वही-

-वही-

वासुदेव नारायण शर्मा घर नं. 431 , काबेसा सांता क्रुज, तिसवाडी-गोवा

7. -वही-

21-फोंडा

-वही-

सैयद इम्तियाज घर नं. 15 , दीपनगर , कुर्ती, फोंडा-गोवा

8. -वही-

25-वास्को-डी-गामा

-वही-

प्रशांत महादेव वस्ता घर नं. 187 , कारपोरेशन बैंक के पीछे , वास्को-डा-गामा, गोवा

9. -वही-

30-फातोर्डा

-वही-

पियडाडे नोरोन्हा इ. सिल्वा घर नं. 707/यूजी-1 , डावोन्डेम वाडो, अम्बाजी फातोर्डा- मडगाव

10. -वही-

33-नावेली

-वही-

इलियास शेख

घर नं. 37/ए , डावोर्लिम ,

सालसेत-गोवा

[सं. 76/गोवा-वि.स./2012 ]

आदेश से ,

बर्नाड जॉन , सचिव

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th January, 2013

the contesting candidate specified in O. N. 5.-Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that column 4 of the Table below at the General Election to the Goa Legislative Assembly, 2012 specified in column 2 and held [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934

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 candidate has 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 him , if any, the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for the said failure ;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A ofthe 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 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 . No.

Particulars of Election

Sl . No. and Name of Assembly Constituency

Name and Address of Contesting Candidate

Reasons for Disqualification

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2-Pernem (SC)

Failed to lodge any account of his election expenses .

RajanKambli H. No. 60/18 , Khalcha- wada, Virnoda, Pernem- Goa

1. General Elections to the Goa Legislative Assembly, 2012

-do-

4-Tivim

-do-

Dattaram Govind Sawant H. No. 18A , At Kothambi , Varcha Wada, Pale , Bicholim-Goa.

-do-

6- Siolim

-do-

Abhijit Dhargalkar H. No. 1074, Madhlem , Bhat, Siolim, Bardez- Goa-403517

-do-

11 - Panaji

-do-

Dominic SavioA.E. Fernandes Plot No. 34 , Lake View Colony, Miramar, Panaji Goa.

-do-

12-Taleigao

-do-

Sanjay C. Korgaonkar H.No.409 , Cabesa, St. Cruz, Ilhas -Goa

-do-

Vasudev Narayan Sharma H. No. 431 , Cabesa , St. Cruz, Tiswadi-Goa

-do-

21-Ponda

-do-

Sayad Imtiyaz H.No. 15 , Deepnagar, Curti , PondaGoa,

-do-

25- Vasco- Da- Gama

-do-

Prashant Mahadev Vastha H.No. 187, Behind Corporation Bank Vasco-da-Gama , Goa .

-do-

30- Fatorda

-do-

10.

-do-

33-Navelim

-do-

Piedade Noronha E Silva H. No. 707/UG - 1 Davondem Vaddo , Ambaji- Fatorda-Margao. Iliyas Shaikh H.No. 37/A, Davorlim Salcete-Goa.

[No. 76 /GOA - LA/2012]

ByOrder,

BERNARD JOHN , Secy.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जनवरी , 2013

आ.अ. 6.-यतः , भारत निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट महाराष्ट्र विधान सभा के साधारण निर्वाचन , 2009 में के स्तम्भ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से उनके नाम के सामने स्तम्भ (4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी, उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ 5 में दर्शाए गए अनुसार लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 , तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं;

और यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थी ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् नोटिस दिए जाने के बाद भी उक्त असफलता के लिए या तो कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है अथवा उनके द्वारा दिए गए अभ्यावेदन पर यदि कोई हो , विचार करने के बाद निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई उचित कारण अथवा न्यायोचित्य नहीं है;

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10क के अनुसरण में निर्वाचन आयोग , एतद्वारा यह घोषणा करता है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ 4 में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्ति , राज्य की विधान परिषद् अथवा विधान सभा अथवा संसद के दोनों सदनों अथवा संघ राज्य क्षेत्र में सदस्य चुने जाने अथवा होने के लिए इस आदेश की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए निरर्हित किए जाते हैं :-

सारणी

निरर्हता का कारण निर्वाचन का विवरण

क्रम सं.

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम एवं पता

विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र कानाम एवं संख्या

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(1)

कैलाश आसाराम बाखरे

1.     महाराष्ट्र विधानसभा के 108- औरंगाबाद पश्चिम                                              अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का
      लिए साधारण निर्वाचन ,   ( अ.जा. )                  फ्लैट नं. 23 , गणेश प्लाजा             कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने
      2009                                               कॉम्प्लेक्स , दिवांदेवडी ,             में असफल रहे ।
                                                         औरंगाबाद
2.    -वही-                   -वही-                      नासेर खान                                     -वही-
                                                          आरेफ कॉलोनी, प्लाट नं. 94 ,
                                                          औरंगाबाद
3.     -वही-                  -वही-                                                                   -वही-

बनकर मिलिंद

रा.रमानगर , क्रांती चौक ,

औरंगाबाद

-वही-

4. -वही-

-वही-

महापूरे दशरथ तुकाराम

मु. तिसगाव , पो . बलदगांव ,

ता. जि. औरंगाबाद

-वही

182- वरली

-वही-

किरण शांताराम माने वरली बी.डी.डी. चॉल नं. 97 ,

कमरा नं. 54,

मुम्बई-400018

191-पेण

6. -वही-

विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित

राउत भिकू सीताराम

रीतिसे अपने निर्वाचन

बी-277 , पेट्रोकेमिकल

कॉलोनी नागेठाणे तह.

व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल

पेण जि. रायगड

करने में असफल रहे ।

-वही-

7. -वही -

विधिद्वारा अपेक्षित

हरिश्चन्द्र भागुराम बेकावडे

मु.पेण न्यूकॉलोनी , लिमायेनगर

तह. पेण , जिला. रायगड

रीतिसे अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे ।

[ सं. 76/महा.-वि.स./2009]

आदेश से ,

बर्नाड जॉन , सचिव [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th January, 2013

O. N. 6. Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates specified in column 4 ofthe Table below at the General Election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assemble , 2009 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;

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 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 :-

TABLE

Sl . Particulars of No. Election

Sl . No. and Name of the Assembly Constituency

(1) (2)

(3)

108 -Aurangabad West(SC)

1. General Election to Maharashtra Legislative Assemble, 2009

2. -do-

-do-

3. -do-

-do-

4. -do-

5. -do-

182-Worli

6. -do-

191 -Pen

7. -do-

191 -Pen

8441/13-2

Name and Address of Contesting Candidate

Reasons for Disqualification

(5)

(4)

Failed to lodge any account of his election expens.

Kailash Asaram Bakhare FlatNo . 23 , Ganesh Plaza Complex, Diwandevdi , Aurangabad.

-do-

Naser Khan , AreifColony Plot No. 94 Aurangabad

-do-

BankarMilind R/ o Rama Nagar, Kranti Chowk , Aurangabad .

-do-

Mahapure Deshrath Tukaram AT. Tisgaon , Post Waladgaon Tq . Dist. Aurangabad.

-do-

Kiran Shantaram Mane Worli B.D.D. Chawl No. 97 Room No. 54 , Mumbai - 400018

failed to lodge account ofhiselection expenses inthe manner required bylaw

RautBhiku Sitaram B-277, Petrochemical Colony, Nagothane , Tal . Pen, Dist. Raigad.

failed to lodge account ofhiselection expenses in the manner required bylaw

Harishchandra Bhaguram Bekawade AT. PenNew Colony, Limayenagar, Tal . Pen , Dist . Raigad.

[No. 76/MT- LA/2009 ]

ByOrder,

BERNARD JOHN , Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)]

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 जनवरी , 2013

आ.अ. 7. यतः , भारत निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोक सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन , 2009 में स्तम्भ (3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से उनके नाम के सामने स्तम्भ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी, उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ 5 में दर्शाए गए अनुसार लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा तद्धीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं;

और यतः , उक्त अभ्यर्थी ने निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा सम्यक् नोटिस दिए जाने के बाद भी उक्त असफलता के लिए या तो कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है अथवा उसके द्वारा दिए गए अभ्यावेदन पर , यदि कोई हो , विचार करने के बाद , निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उसके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई उचित कारण अथवा न्यायोचितय कारण नहीं है;

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 क के अनुसरण में निर्वाचन आयोग , एतद्वारा , यह घोषणा करता है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तम्भ 4 में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्ति, राज्य की विधान परिषद् अथवा विधान सभा अथवा संसद के दोनों सदनों अथवा संघ राज्य क्षेत्र में सदस्य चुने जाने अथवा होने के लिए इस आदेश की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए निरर्हित किया जाता हैं :-

सारणी

निर्वाचन का विवरण

निरर्हता का कारण क्रम सं.

लोक सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र कानाम एवं संख्या

निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले अभ्यर्थी का नाम एवं पता

(2)

(3)

(1)

(5)

(4)

21- नाशिक

एड. गुलवे रामनाथ संतुजी

महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोक सभा के लिए साधारण निर्वाचन, 2009

विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे ।

मु. गोवर्धन पो. गंगापुर ताल, जिला नाशिक, वर्तमान पत्ता- इन्द्रप्रस्थ के नजदीक , एफ -10 ठाक्कर रीट्रीट ओल्ड, गंगापुर नाका, नाशिक-13

[स. 76/महा. लो.स./2009 ] आदेश से,

बर्नाड जॉन , सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th January , 2013

O. N. 7. Whereas , the Election Commission of India is satisfied that the contesting candidates specified in column 4 of the Table below at the General Election to the Lok Sabha, 2009 in the Maharashtra 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 him , if any, the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for the said failure ;

TABLE

Sl . No.

Particulars of Election

Sl . No. and Name of the Parliamentary Constituency

Name and Address of the Contesting Candidate

Reason for Disqualification

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1 . General Elections

21 - Nashik

AD. Gulve Ramnath Santuji

to the Lok Sabha ,

2009 in the

electionexpense .

Maharashtra Satate

Failed to lodge any accounts of his inthe manner required

bylaw.

At. Govardhan , Post Gangapur, Tal , dist. Nahsik . Present address- Near Indraprastha, F- 10, Thakkr Retreat old . Gangapur Naka, Nashik - 13 .

[No. 76/MT- HP/2009 ]

ByOrder, BERNARD JOHN , Secy.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 10 जनवरी , 2013

5. Dr. Diwakar Tejswi , son of Sri Kiran Kishor Saran , resident of M.I.G. 161 Lohiya Nagar , P.O. Kankarbagh , P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna 800020

6. Ram Narayan Rai , son of Sri Han Charan Rai , resident of mohall a Dhirachak P.O. Anishabad , P.S. Anishabad , Patna 800002 .

आ.अ. 8. लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 ( 1951 का 43 ) की धारा 106 के अनुसरण में, निर्वाचन आयोग एतद्वारा निर्वाचन अर्जी सं.7/2009 में दिये गये उच्च न्यायालय , पटना के तारीख 6 नवम्बर , 2012 के आदेश को प्रकशित करता है ।

( आदेश इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है। )

7. Hasan Faizi Azami , son of Sri Hasan Manjoor Hashmi , resident of Hasmi Mahal , Hashmi Gali , mohalla Khanmirza, P.S. Sultanganj/Alamganj , P.O. Mahendru , Patna 800006 .

[सं. 82/बिहार-लो . स. ( 7/2009 ) /2012 ] आदेश से , हरबंस सिंह, सचिव

8. Anjani Kumar , son of late Tarkeshwar Prasad, resident of House No.39 Loco Colony Nagarparishad Khagaul . Circle Danapur , P.S. Khagaul , P.O. Khagaul, distt . Patna 801105 .

New Delhi , the 10th January, 2013

9. Kumar Rajiv, son of Smt . Rani Tara, resident of Deshprem Abhiyan Mein Humsafar Banei , Behind ofVikararn Hotel , Exhibition Road, P.O. Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800008 .

O. N. 8. In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission hereby published Order dated the 6th November, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna inElection Petition No. 7 of2009 .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

10. Deepak Kumar Singh , son of late Chandraket Narayan Singh , resident of Buddha Colony, G.P.O. , P.S. Budha Colony, district Patna

Election Petition No.7 of 2009

11. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Ajab Lal Sharma, resident of Salempur, P.O. Salempur, P.S. Katrasgarh, Distt . Dhanbad ( Jharkhand) .

In the matter of an application under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Article 329(b ) of the Constitution of India

12. Promod Kr. Gupta, son of Sri Ramji Sah , resident ofmohalla Bakarganj Bajaja, Muharampur Chauraha, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahore , Patna 800004.

Ghanshyam Lal Jamuar, son of late Ram Lakhan Lal Jamuar, resident of Harnahatola , Umardaraj Lane , Lodikatra , Р.О. Patna City, P.S. Chowk Patna City, district Patna - 800008

..... Petitioner/ s

13. Rambhajan Singh Nishad, son of late Charmru Mahto, resident of Ramkrishna Colony, Sandalpur, P.O. Mahendru , P.S. Bahadurpur , Distt. Patna Versus

14. Vidhan Chandra Rana , son of Sri Rajendra Nath Das, resident of Chandmari Road , Gali No.4, Lohiya Nagar, P.O. Kankarbagh , P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna20.

1 Satrughan Sinha, son of late Bhuneshwari Pd. Sinha, resident of House No.102 D. Block Kadamkuan , P.O. Kadarmkuan , P.S. Kankarbagh , Patna-800003 .

15. Sanjay Verma, son of late Bishambhar Nath Verma, resident of J.P. Nagar, Bagnali , P.O. Hazipur , P.S. Hazipur Town, district Vaishali .

2 Mr. Vijay Kumar, son of late Kishori Lal , son of not known, resident of Station Road, Guizarbagh , P.O. Mina Bazar(Gulzarbagh) P.S. Alarnganj , Patna- 800007.

16. Hemant Kumar Singh son of Sri Satyadev Prasad Singh , resident of 405 , Swarup Complex , Bazar Samiti Road, P.O. Bazar Samiti , P.S. Bahadurpur, Patna- 16 .

Respondent/s 3. Shekhar Suman , son of Sri Suman Sekhar Bhusan Prasad , resident of 26 , Oberai Scot Garden , Shastrinagar, 1st Lane Apna Ghar, Road/West, Pin code400053 district Mumbai -53 .

Forthe Petitionerls: Mr. S. Azeem , Advocate

For the Respondentls : M/ s S.N.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv. , Manik Vedsen, Amrendra

4. On Mausami , son of Sri Sahjat Hasan Masumi , resident of Qrt . No. W 113 , Mithapur Khagaul Road , Patna, P.O. GP.O. , P.S. Jakkanpur, Dist . Patna

Kr. Singh , Subhash Chandra Bose , Advocates [PART II-SEC . 3 (iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA

C.A.V.JUDGMENT

V. N. Sinha , J. Petitioner filed this election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) questioning the election of respondent no.1 from 30 - Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency held on 7.5.2009 ( hereinafter referred to as the impugned election ) on the ground that his nomination paper for contesting the impugned election was improperly rejected and for such improper rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner impugned election of respondent no . 1 is void .

Officer allowed another candidate Sri Hasan Faizi Azami respondent no . 7 to produce his 10th proposer on 21-4- 2009.Aforesaid indiscretion ofthe Returning Officer was reported to the Election Commission of India and Chief Electoral Officer , Bihar but they also did not take notice of the aforesaid indiscretion on the part of Returning Officer. Petitioner, however, produced his 10th proposer in the office oftheReturning Officer on 21-4-2009 at 9.15 A.M. but the petitioner was neither allowed to meet the Returning Officer with his 10th proposer nor information about the said fact was given to the Returning Officer by the subordinates of the Returning Officer. It is stated in paragraph - 9 of the election petition that the Returning Officer did not permit the petitioner and others to examine either his own nomination paper or the nomination paper of other candidates and thereby according to the petitioner scrutiny was not conducted as prescribed under law. Aforesaid misdemeanour of the Returning Officer was communicated by the petitioner to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar and ChiefElection Commissioner of India under letter no.2 /EC/ 09 dated 20-4-2009 and letter no.3 /EC/09 dated 21-4-2009 , Annexures - 5 , 5/1 to the election petition . In paragraph - 11 of the election petition it has been averred that petitioner learnt about rejection of his nomination paper on 2 1-4-2009 at 4.30 P.M. after the list of validly nominated candidate was pasted on the notice Board and the name of the petitioner was not included therein . Having learnt about the rejection of the nomination paper petitioner wanted to ascertain the reasons for rejection of his nomination paper by filing application but the same was not accepted by the Magistrate on duty, who neither received the representation of the petitioner on behalf of the Returning Officer nor allowed him to meet the Returning Officer and thus petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to persuade the Returning Officer not to reject his nomination paper . Petitioner thereafter submitted letter no.EC/4/09 dated 24.4.2009 , Annexure-6 to the Returning Officer asking him to furnish reasons which persuaded him to reject his nomination paper , copy whereof was also sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar . In paragraph- 12 of the election petition it has been averred that petitioner was not provided with certified copy of order dated 20-4-2009 by which his nomination paper was rejected, although he was entitled for being given the certified copy of order rejecting his nomination paper no sooner the same was passed. It has further been averred in the said paragraph that petitioner applied for grant of certified copy on 8-5-2009 which was not attended to until he persuaded the authorities to furnish the same , which was finally given to him on 18-5-2009 and is contained in Annexure - 7 to the election petition. In paragraph - 13 petitioner further stated that he communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar and the ChiefElection Commissioner , New Delhi the illegal manner in which the Returning Officer was discharging his duties with a view to impede filing of nomination paper to filter the candidates from contesting the impugned election . A 2. In the election petition petitioner asserted that he came to the office of the Returning Officer to file his nomination paper for contesting the impugned election on 17-4-2009 at 1.30 P.M. but the nomination paper was not received and he reported such fact to the State Electoral Officer, Bihar under letter no.EC/1/2009 dated 17-4-2009 , Annexure - I . Petitioner again approached the Returning Officer on 18.4.2009 for filing his nomination paper, which was received and petitioner was administered oath at 11.26 A.M. Acknowledging the fact that petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the impugned election in two sets on 18.4.2009 at 11.25 A.M. he was granted receipt in part 6 dated 18-4-2009 , Annexures - 3 , 3/1 asking himto appear for the scrutiny of the nomination paper on 20-4-2009 at 11 A.M. in the Chamber of the District Magistrate , Patna in Collectorate , Patna. Petitioner was also served with the check list dated 18-4-2009 , Annexure -2/ 1 indicating that the documents required to be appended with the nomination paper has been appended with the same . He was also served with the certificate dated 18-4-2009 , Annexure - 2 that he was administered oath on 18-4-2009 at 11.26 A.M. Petitioner was telephonically called on 19-4. -2009 in the confidential section of the office ofthe Returning Officer to collect urgent letter no.86 dated 19-4-2009 , Annexure - 4 asking him to produce all his proposers on 20-4-2009 in the office of the Returning Officer for verification of their signature . In compliance of the instruction contained in letter dated 19-4-2009, Annexure - 4 petitioner came to the office of the District Magistrate/Returning Officer on 20-4-2009 along with his 9 proposers . The Returning Officer proceeded with the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the petitioner and became satisfied after examining the Voter identity Card of the proposers as also by verifying their signature . In paragraph 8 of the petition petitioner has stated that he requested the Returning Officer in writing that he may be permitted to produce his 10th proposer Dr. Tapeshwar Thakur on 21-4-2009 as on 20-4-2009 10th proposer ofthe petitioner was engaged in the marriage of his daughter at Jamalpur but such request was declined , whereas Returning

      [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (iii) ]                  भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
                                                                                                                          21
      compactdisc of the video recording of the events , which      paragraph -23 it has been stated that part, roll number of
      took place on 17/ 18-4-2009 was also prepared and can be      proposer no.7did not tally with the voter list is not a defect .
      produced in the Court as and when necessary. In paragraph     In paragraph 24 it has been stated that part 3 ' Ka'of the
      14petitioner averred that Electronic Voting Machine (E.V.M. ) nomination paper has not been filled up in accordance
     provides for only 16 names , whereas there were 33            with law is also not correct as it has been filled up properly.
      candidates who wanted to contest the impugned election .      In paragraph - 25 it has been stated that facts as stated in
     The Returning Officer adopted tactics to reject the            Form 26 and affidavit, Annexure - 1 have not been differently
     nomination paper of 17 candidates so as to facilitate the      stated as facts stated in the two affidavit have been
     officers and staff working to conduct the impugned election   mentioned in accordance with law. In paragraph- 26 of the
     todo with one Electronic Voting Machine which contains        election petition it has been averred that cause of action
     the name ofnot more than 16 candidates. In paragraph - 15     for filing this petition arose between 17-4-2009-21-4-2009
     petitioner asserted that Returning Officer of impugned        as petitioner had every chance to become victorious as he
     election was also the Returning Officer for 31 - Patliputra   isassociated with the pain of common man and has earned
    Parliamentary Constituency and in both the Constituencies      reputation as savior of the downtrodden for his
    33 candidates had filed their nomination paper but the         involvement with their pain and sorrow. In paragraph - 27 it
    Returning Officer in both the constituencies adopted tactics   has been stated that petitioner was prevented from
    to reject the nomination paper of 17 candidates so as to       contesting the impugned election on account of Janta Dal
     limit the number of contesting candidates in both the        United , the ruling party in the State in association with
    constituencies to 16 with the object of conducting the        Bhartiya Janta Party getting assistance from the Returning
    electionwith one Electronic Voting Machine . In paragraph-    Officer for furtherance of election prospect of respondent
    16 of the election petition petitioner asserted that the      no.1 by applying latent administrative pressure as petitioner
    conduct of the Returning Officer while conducting the         once nominated for contesting the impugned election would
    impugned election has not been fair and impartial as he       have become victorious . In paragraph- 28 petitioner has
    was influenced by the party and the candidate . In            asserted that he requested for grant of copy of the
    paragraph - 17 petitioner has asserted that petitioner is     nomination paper (s ) which was rejected. The office ofthe
    senior citizen , a social activist and believes in free and fair Returning Officer assured the petitioner to supply the copy
    election but the conduct of Returning Officer was not at      ofthe order rejecting the nomination paper on the day of
    parwith the expectations of fairness vested under the law     filing of petition but the copy of the order rejecting his
    in the office of the Returning Officer . In paragraph - 18,19 nomination paper was not made available to him and he
   petitioner asserted that he was not furnished the reasons      hadto apply for certified copy of the same under requisition
    for rejection of his nomination paper at the relevant time    dated 23-6-2009, Annexure - 8. In paragraph -29 election
    and thereby deprived of his statutory right to contest the    petitioner has asserted that being aggrieved by the rejection
   impugned election. In paragraph - 20 it has been asserted     ofhis nomination paper he filed C.W.J.C. No.5454 of2009
   that petitioner is attached to the people and their ground    which was dismissed under order dated 29-4-2009,
   reality, in case, nomination paper of the petitioner accepted Annexure- 9 holding that High Court had no jurisdiction to
   as valid he would have won the election as there was every
   chance ofhis victory for the services rendered by him as a     entertain such writ petition , however, granting liberty to
                                                                 the petitioner to represent before the Election Commission
   Trade Union Leader and also for his services amongst the      of India where petitioner had already represented but the
  downtrodden. In paragraph - 21 petitioner has asserted that    Commission maintained reticence and did not take
  his nomination paper was rejected improperly on flimsy         affirmative steps . In paragraph -30 of the election petition
  grounds as thereunder it was held that petitioner /his         petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 20-
  proposers were not present at the time of scrutiny despite    4-2009 by which his nomination paper for contesting the
   notice to the petitioner and their signature in part 2 of the impugned election was rejected and to declare the election
  nomination Paper could not be verified . It was also held      as void with further direction to hold fresh election.
  that part number, roll number of proposer no.7 as given in
  the nomination form was not in consonance with part                 3.Respondent no.1 in paragraph 1 , 2 of his written
  number , roll number given in the voter list. It was further  statement has stated that election petition is not
  held that part 3 ' Ka' was not filled up by the candidate in  maintainable and fit to be dismissed for non - compliance of
  accordance with law. It was also found that information       the mandatory provisions of Sections 81 , 82, 83 of theAct .
  givenin Form -26 and affidavit, Annexure- 1 are not same . In In paragraph -3 , 4 of the written statement it has been stated
  paragraph -22 it has been stated that the finding that the    that election petitioner has failed to furnish adequate
  candidate or his proposers were not present on the date of    statement ofmaterial facts and full particulars constituting
 scrutiny is not correct. Petitioner and his proposers were    the allegation of corrupt practice raised in paragraph- 27 of
 present on the date of scrutiny, which is evident from         the election petitioner that respondent no . 1 solicited and
 perusal of nomination paper showing their signature           procured the help of Returning Officer for furtherance of
 additionally in the margin of the nomination paper. In         his election prospect and thereby election petitioner
8467/13-3

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)] 22

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934

impugned election the election petitioner left the place of scrutiny and the Returning Officer had no opportunity to furnish the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner on him . According to respondent no . 1 the statements made in Annexure -6 are matters of record as the petitioner himself made it impossible for the Returning Officer to grant him the copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper as he absented from the place ofscrutiny. In the circumstances , it is submitted in the said paragraph that the allegations made against the Returning Officer in paragraph - 11 read with Anenxure- 6 are not fair , besides being motivated is far from truth. In paragraph 11 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has denied the averments made in paragraph 12. of the election petition read with contents of Annexure - 7 and stated that allegations made against the officials in paragraph 12 are not correct and Annexure - 7 is self created document ofthe petitioner as he himself absented from Chamber of the Returning Officer after rejection of his nomination paper during scrutiny and it was not possible for the Returning Officer to hand over the order of rejection of the nomination paper to him. In paragraph 12, 13 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has dealt with statement made in paragraph 13, 14 , 15 of the election petition and has stated that statement made in the paragraph under reply are irrelevant imaginary and false, which has nothing to do with the rejection ofnomination paper of the election petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the written statement respondent no . I has stated that allegation raised in paragraph 16 of the election petition is not only false but also emphatically denied by respondent no . 1. In paragraph 15 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has considered the averments made in paragraph 17 of the election petition and has stated that the statement made therein are in self praise of the petitioner and irrelevant for the purpose of this election petition. In paragraph 16 ofthe written statement respondent no. 1 has considered the statement made in paragraph 18, 19 of the election petition and stated that the contents thereof are not correct because petitioner had full knowledge regarding the reasons for rejection of his nomination paper during scrutiny and any statement made to the contrary is false , which is emphatically denied by respondent no.l. In paragraph 17 of the written statement respondent no.1 has considered the averments made in paragraph 20 of the election petition and stated that contents thereof are not true but wishful thinking of the petitioner. In paragraph 18 ofthe written statement respondent no . 1 has considered the averments made in paragraph 21 of the election petition and states that contents thereof are matters of record and petitioner cannot raise any grievance against the facts stated therein. In paragraph 19 of the written statement respondent no.1 has considered the averments made in paragraph 22 of the election petition and stated that averments made therein are not correct and is being emphatically denied by respondent no . I. In paragraph 20 ofthe written statement respondent no. 1 has considered miserably failed to comply the provisions of Section 83 of the Act and the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure .In paragraph- 5 of the written statement assertion has been made that election petition suffers from incurable defect and infirmities as the verification and affidavit in support of the election petition is not in accordance with order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure . In paragraph -6 of the written statement averment has been made that the facts stated in paragraph 1,2 , 3 as also the contents of Annexures- 1 to 7 of the election petition are matters of record but burden to prove the same lies on the petitioner. In paragraph - 7 of the written statement respondent no.I had denied the contents of paragraph - 8 of the election petition as not only incorrect but also misleading and contrary to the records , particularly the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination no.56 ofthe election petitioner, as according to respondent no. I there were three substantial and vital defect in the said nomination, namely, that election petitioner did not produce his proposers before the Returning Officer to verify the genuineness of their signature over the nomination paper, serial and part number ofproposer no.7 as mentioned in the nomination paper of the petitioner did not find place in the voter list , the affidavit in prescribed Form 26 and Annexure- 1 did not tally as in Form 26 election petitioner failed to mention about trial of some of the criminal cases pending against him, which were included in Annexure - 1 appended with the nomination paper . According to respondent no. 1 in view of the aforesaid three defects noticed in the nomination paper of the petitioner the Returning Officer had no option but to reject the nomination paperofthe petitioner on the ground of substantial, material and vital defects noticed in the nomination paper of the petitioner, which is evident from perusal of the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. In paragraph- 8 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has stated that statement/allegations made in paragraph - 9 of the election petition are afterthought raised only for the purpose of election petition , as according to respondent no . 1 opportunity was provided to all the candidates to examine the nomination paper of the other candidates and the allegation to the contrary made in paragraph under reply is denied. In paragraph 9 of the written statement respondent no.1 has denied the statements made in paragraph 10 as also the contents of letter dated 20 , 21.4.2009 Annexures - 5, 5/1 of the election petition as accordingto respondent no. 1 letter dated 20,21.4.2009 were manufactured much after the scrutiny of the nomination paper(s) filed for contesting the impugned election . In paragraph 10 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has stated that statement made in paragraph - 11 and Annexure- 6ofthe election petition is not fully correct as according to respondent no . 1 no sooner the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the election petitioner during scrutiny of the nomination paper for contesting the [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934

Court in the election petition. In paragraph 28 of the written statement respondent no . 1 stated that there is no statement in the election petition that petitioner has deposited a sum ofRs.2,000 as security money required under Section 117 of the Act . In paragraph-29 of the written statement respondent no. 1 has stated that the statement which have not been specially denied in this written statement be deemed to have been denied .

4. Besides respondent no . 1 , respondent nos.2, 5 also filed theirwritten statement but as they did not examine anywitness in support of the pleading made in their written statement, the details of their written statement is not being incorporated in this order.

5. In the light of the pleadings made by the parties thisCourt under order dated 21.05.2010 framed following issues :--

a.Whether or not provision of Sections 81 , 82 and 83 ofthe R.P. Act , 1951 has been complied with ?

b . Whether or not the election petition contains complete cause of action adequate to set the case for trial?

c.Whether or not election petition contains adequate statement of material facts with respect to corrupt practice ofthe Returning Officer?

d. Whether or not the attempt to nip in the bud the zeal of the petitioner by way of rejecting this nomination ?

e. Whether or not the election petition suffers from any of the incurable defects and infirmities as raised in paragraph - 5 of the written statement ?

f. Whether or not the Returning Officer can issue notice U/ s 36( 2) ( c) calling for the nominee to produce his proposers for verification of the genuineness of their signature?

g. Whether or not the name of electoral roll number ofproposer no.7 is the same as entered in the electoral roll?

h . Whether or not under the requirement of law prescribed form 26 and Annexure- 1 of the nomination should tally?

i. Whether or not the Returning Officer has acted in arbitrary manner while conducting election process?

j .Whether or not contents of annexure and solemn affirmation is an after- thought which is a communication to authorities following autocratic action of the Returning Officer?

k. Whether or not rejection of nomination of the petitioner is valid and proper?

1.Whether or not in case of rejection of nomination paper not in accordance with law the election of respondent no.1 from 30- Patna Sahib should be held void?.

theaverments made in paragraph 23 of the election petition and has stated that the statements made therein are against the law as the wrong serial , part number of the proposer in the nomination paper is a vital defect in the nomination paper and as such any statement to the contrary made by the petitioner is emphatically denied by respondent no . 1 In paragraph 21 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has considered the averments made in paragraph 24 of the election petition and has stated that the contents thereof are not correct and emphatically denied by respondent no.l. In paragraph 22 of the written statement respondent no.l has considered the averments made in paragraph 25 of the election petition and has stated that contents thereof are not correct as the statement made in form 26 supported by an affidavit as well as statement made in affidavit , Annexure- 1 are matters of record which clearly indicate that the statement made in the two affidavit are contrary to each other and in such circumstances any statement to the contrary made by the petitioner is not correct and emphatically denied by respondent no.1. In paragraph 23 of the written statement respondent no. 1 has considered the averments made in paragraph -26 of the election petition and has stated that contents thereof are hypothetical and selfpraise of the petitioner as no complete cause ofaction arose in view of the allegations made in the election petition, which is too vague without any material facts and contrary to law. In paragraph 24 of the written statement respondent no. 1 has considered the averments made- in paragraph 27 of the election petition that respondent no . 1 procured assistance of Returning Officer for the furtherance of his success in the impugned election but petitioner has utterly failed in giving adequate statement of material facts and full particulars as is required by mandatory provision of Section 83 of the Act and as such allegations are fit to be deleted from pleadings made in the election petition and the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily under order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. In paragrahp- 25 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has considered the averments made in paragraph -28 of the election petition and has stated that the same is repetition of the grievance raised in paragraph- 12 of the election petition and required to be ignored . In paragraph - 26 of the written statement respondent no . 1 has considered the averments made in paragraph -29 of the election petition and has stated that the contents thereof are contrary to law as there is an embargo raised by Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and as such steps taken by the petitioner for filing writ petition assailing the order rejecting his nomination paper was contrary to law and the Constitution of India and in such circumstances , the High Court rightly rejected the writ petition ofthe petitioner, which is evident from Annexure- 9 to the election petition, the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. In paragraph 27 of the written statement respondent no . 1 stated that relief prayed for in paragraph 30 of the election petition are contrary to law and petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the High [PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934

6. Inthe light ofthe issues framed election petitioner examined six witnesses .

(a) P.W. 1 is Sri Mahesh Prasad Singh who was also a candidate for contesting the impugned election and filed Election Petition No.6 of2009 which was dismissedby this Court under judgment dated 5-9-2012 . He stated in paragraphs 3 , 4 of his examination in chief that he and the petitioner arrived together on 17-4-2009 at 1.30 P.M. by chance for filing the nomination paper in the office ofthe ReturningOfficer and waited till 3 P.M. but could not submit nomination paper as both were not allowed to enter the Chamber of Returning Officer . In paragraph- 5 of the examination in chief witness stated that he learnt that Sri Shekhar Suman took about one hour and 30 minutes to fill/ submit his nomination paper and by the time he came out ofthe Chamber of the Returning Officer it was 3 P.M. and the witness and the election petitioner was asked to come on the next day for filing the nomination paper. In paragraph -6 ofthe examination in chief witness has stated that petitioner arrived for filing his nomination paper on 18-4-2009 at 10 A.M. but filed his nomination paper at about 11.30 A.M. In paragraph - 7 of the examination in chief witness has stated that scrutiny was held on 20-4-2009 but the order was made available to the petitioner on 18-5-2009 . In paragraph- 8 of the examination in chief witness has stated that he has come to know about rejection of the nomination paper. no . 56 of the petitioner on various grounds . In paragraph- 2 of the cross -examination witness has stated that he has also filed election petition in which he has already deposed. In paragraph- 3 ofthe cross - examination witness has stated that in his earlier deposition he has already stated that he was employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation wherefrom he was dismissed . In paragraph - 4 of the cross -examination witness has stated that he has challenged the dismissal order by filing writ petition in the High Court . In paragraph - 5 of the cross - examination witness has stated that before filing wirt petition he challenged the dismissal order order beofore the Chairman- cum -Managing Director , Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation which was also rejected and order rejecting the appeal was challenged by filing the writ petition. In paragraph-6 of the cross - examination witness has stated that F.I.R. No. 61 of 2002 for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. was also registered against him on 4-5- 2002, which is stated in paragraph - 5 of the appellate order dated 20-5-2004 . In paragraph - 7 ofthe cross - examination witness has admitted that he was not present at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper of election petitioner . In paragraph- 8 of the cross - examination witness has stated that he is not aware about the grounds on which nomination paper of the election petitioner was rejected.

(b) P.W. 2 is Mukesh Jamuar, son of the election petitioner . He has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination in chief that he was one of the proposer of election

petitioner in the nomination paper, which was filed for contesting the impugned election and that he along with election petitioner arrived in the office of the Returning Officer on 17-4-2009 at 1.30 P.M. and reported their arrival totheMagistrate on duty. In paragraph - 2 of the examination in chief witness has stated that after arrival petitioner and the proposers were asked to wait as the witness was informed that some other candidate is submitting his nomination paper in the Chamber of Returning Officer. In paragraph - 3 ofthe examination in chief witness has stated that he and the election petitioner was not allowed to enter the Chamber of the Returning Officer and were asked by the Magistrate on duty to come on the next day. In paragraph -4 of the examination in chiefwitness has stated that a complaint letter, Annexure- 1 to the election petition was communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar about the deliberate wastage of time of the election petitioner. In paragraph - 5 of the examination in chief witness has stated that he along with election petitioner and all 10 proposers arrived in the office of the Returning Officer on 18-4-2009 at 10-30 A.M. , two sets ofnomination paper was submitted and all the were examined with reference to their voter identity card and their signature was also verified , whereafter the petitioner was allowed to take oath and receipt, certificates issued to him. In paragraph - 6 of the examination in chief witness has stated that proceedings to scrutinize the nomination paper was taken up on 20-4-2009 , he and others were allowed to enter the chamber ofReturning Officer where his signature and the signature of other proposers was verified with reference to voter identity card and the proposers were asked to put their signature on the margin of Form -2 ofthe nomination paper. In paragraph- 7 of the examination in chief witness stated that during the scrutiny no defect in the nomination paper ofthe petitioner was pointed out . The nomination paper of the petitioner, however, was improperly rejected . In paragraph - 8 of the examination in chief witness has stated that the copy of order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner was not made available to the petitioner until 6P.M. on 21-4-2009 as the same was issued on 18-5-2009 . Inparagraph- 1 of the cross - examination witness has stated that he was one of the proposers in the nomination paper ofthe election petitioner who is his father. In paragraph - 2 ofthe cross -examination witness has stated that including him there were 10 proposers . In paragraph- 3 of the cross- examination witness has stated that he does not remember the serial , part number of all the 10 proposers . In paragraph -4 of the cross - examination witness has stated that he does- not even remember his serial , part number as he has voter identity card . In paragraph- 5 of the cross- examination witness has stated that he is not aware about the serial, part number of his father. In paragraph -6 of the cross examination witness has stated that he is also not aware about the serial number of nomination paper of his father. In paragraph - 7 of the cross - examination witness has stated that his father has filed nomination paper in two

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( iii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934 25
sets . In paragraph- 8 of the cross - examination witness has to look into the nomination paper of others . In paragraph-
stated that proposers in both the sets of nomination paper 6ofthe examination in chiefwitness has stated that scrutiny
were common. In paragraph - 9 of the cross examination was conducted individually. In paragraph - 7 of the
witness has stated that he does remember the name of all examination in chief witness has stated that Returning
the 10 proposers of his father. In paragraph - 10 of the cross Officer did not properly conduct the scrutiny proceeding
examination witness has stated that on the date of scrutiny and acted as a dictator while conducting scrutiny
he was also present . In paragraph - 11 of the cross- proceeding. In paragraph - 8 of the examination in chief
examination witness has stated that he was allowed to enter witness has stated that occasion for filing election petition
the Chamber of Returning Officer along with his father occurred as candidates were not allowed to look into the
when he entered the Chamber of Returning Officer for the nomination paper of other candidates . In paragraph- 9 of
purpose of scrutiny of his nomination paper. In the examination in chief witness has stated that election
paragraph- 12 of the cross - examination witness has stated petitioner was not handed over the order rejecting the
that during the scrutiny of nomination paper his father nomination paper on 20-4-2009 or 21-4-2009 . In paragraph-
also put his signature on the register. In paragraph- 13 of 1 of the cross examination witness has stated that he was
the cross -examination witness has stated that all the 10
also a contesting candidate in the impugned election . In
proposers have entered the Chamber of Returning Officer paragraph -2 of the cross examination witness has stated
at the time of scrutiny. In paragraph - 14 of the thathe indicated his age in the nomination paper as 48 or
cross - examination witness has stated that all the 10 49years . In paragraph - 3 of the cross - examination witness
proposers have put their signature over the attendance has stated that he had gone to the office of the Returning
register. In paragraph - 15 of the cross - examination witness Officer on 20-4-2009 along with his 10 proposers for
has stated that he does not recollect the exact time at which verification of their signature . In paragraph -4 of the cross
the scrutiny of the nomination paper ofhis father was taken examination witness has stated that he does not remember
up and concluded. In paragraph - 16 ofthe cross - examination the serial number of his nomination paper. In paragraph - 5
witness has stated that after scrutiny of the nomination of the cross -examination witness has stated that he had
paper ofhis father reason for rejection of the nomination not filed any petition stating that opportunity to examine
paper was not informed . In paragraph - 17 of the the nomination paper of other candidates was not given to
cross -examination witness has stated that later on he came
him and to the other candidates . In paragraph- 6 of the
to learn that nomination paper of his father was rejected on cross- examination witness has stated that he does not
the ground that signature of one of the proposers was not remember whether his nomination paper was subjected to
verified . In paragraph - 18 of the cross -examination witness scrutiny prior to or after the scrutiny of nomination paper
stated that the proposer whose signature is said to have ofthe election petitioner. In the same paragraph the witness
not been verified at the time of scrutiny was also present at volunteered that candidates were called serially for
the time of scrutiny. In paragraph - 19 of the cross- scrutiny of their nomination paper . In paragraph- 7 of the
examination witness has stated that he is not aware whether cross -examination witness has stated that he does not even
signature of proposer taken at the time of scrutiny for remember the name of candidate whose nomination paper
verification matched with his earlier signature on the was scrutinized prior to his nomination paper. In paragraph -8
nomination paper. In paragraph -20 ofthe cross- examination of the cross -examination witness has stated that he does
witness has stated that signature of all the proposer was not even recollect the name of the candidate whose
verified at the time of scrutiny. In paragraph - 21 of the nomination paper was scrutinized after his nomination
cross- examination witness has stated that he does not paper. In paragraph- 9 of the cross -examination witness has
remember the name of proposer whose signature did not stated that he does not even remember the serial number of
match with his earlier signature on the nomination paper. the nomination paper of the election petitioner. In
In paragraph - 22 the witness refuted the suggestion that he paragraph - 10 of the cross -examination witness has stated
was deposing in the election case only with a view to help that his nomination paper was subjected to scrutiny in
hisfather.
between 12.00-12.15 P.M. but he does not remember the
(c) P. W. 3 is Sanjay Verma who was also a candidate time of scrutiny of nomination paper of the election
petitioner. In paragraph - 11 -of the cross - examination witness
for the impugned election . In paragraph -2 of the
examination in chief witness has stated that he filed his has stated that he was not amongst the proposer of the
nomination on 17-4-2009 . In paragraphs - 3 , 4 of the election petitioner. In paragraph - 12 of the scrutiny of
nomination paper was completed on 21-4-2009 but the
examination in chief witness has stated that scrutiny was
notice indicating the names of validly nominated candidate
conducted on 20-4-2009 in the official Chamber of District
was not affixed on the notice board on that date . In
Magistrate, Patna- cum- Returning Officer of the impugned paragraph - 7 ofthe examination in chief witness has stated
election. In paragraph - 5 of the examination in chiefwitness thatas complained by the election petitioner order rejecting
has stated that he was not allowed to look into the
his nomination paper was not made available to him . In
nomination paper of other candidates , although he desired
paragraph - 1 of the cross - examination witness has stated
846713-4

[PART II-SEC . 3 (iii ) ] 26

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934

that he is accredited representative of News + Television Channel . In paragraph -2 of the cross examination witness has stated that he had gone to the office of the Returning Officer of the impugned election to cover the News concerning filing ofthe nomination paper by the candidates . In paragraph- 3 of the cross examination witness has stated that statement made in paragraph - 2 of his examination in chief is correct, other representatives of News + T.V. Channel were also present in the office of the Returning Officer on or before on 17-4-2009 and he also came there . In paragraph- 4of the cross examination witness has asserted about the demonstration and protest organised and stated in paragraphs 3 , 4 of his examination in chief, which was also reported in the electronic and print media. In paragraph - 5 of the cross examination witness has stated that he does not remember the date on which the News about the protest and demonstration referred to in paragraphs -3 and 4 of his examination in chief was telecast in the electronic media and printed in the newspaper. In paragraph -6 of the cross examination witness has stated that he was not amongst the proposers of election petitioner. In paragraph- 7 of the cross examination witness has stated that he was outside the Chamber of the Returning Officer when election petitioner came out from the Chamber of the Returning Officer after scrutiny ofhis nomination paper. In paragraph - 8 of the cross examination witness has stated that he stood by his statement made in paragraph -6 of his examination in chief that list of validly nominated candidates was not affixed on the notice board on 21-4-2009 . In paragraph - 9 of the cross examination witness has stated that he has good relation with every one in the society including the election petitioner. In paragraph - 10 of the cross examination witness has stated that it is not a fact that he has come to depose falsely because he has good relation with election petitioner.

(e) P. W. 5 is the election petitioner. In paragraph - 1 of the examination in chief witness has stated that he was a candidate for the impugned election . In paragraph -2 of the examination in chief witness has stated that he filed nomination as an independent candidate . In paragraph -3 of the examination in chief witness has stated that on 17-4-2009 he reported his arrival to the Magistrate on duty at1.30 P.M. but was made to wait till 3 P.M. yet not allowed to file his nomination parer . In paragraph - 4 of the examination in chief witness has stated that he filed two sets ofnomination paper on 18-4-2009 which were numbered as 56, 57. In paragraph- 5 of the examination in chiefwitness has stated that he had gone to the office of the Returning Officer on 18-4-2009 with all his 10 proposers for filing nomination paper. In paragraph - 6 of the examination in chief witness has stated that Returning Officer did not raise any doubt concerning the signature of the proposers on the nomination paper and allowed the same to be filed in two sets . In paragraph- 7 of the examination in chief election petitioner has stated that all his 10 proposers were examined individually on the date of filing of his nomination papers .

Inparagraph -8 ofthe examination in chief election petitioner has stated that less than 24 hours notice was given to him to come along with all the proposers for scrutiny of the nomination paper on the date of scrutiny i.e. 20-4-2009. In paragraph - 9 of the examination in chief election petitioner has stated that he was present along with 9 ofhis proposers on 20-4-2009 . One of the proposers could not come because ofthe circumstances beyond his control. In paragraph - 10 ofthe examination in chief election petitioner has stated that he requested the Returning Officer to grant him indulgence to produce his 10th proposer on 21-4-2009, which was not allowed . In paragraph- 11 ofthe examination in chief election petitioner has stated that the Returning Officer wantedto conduct the impugned election with one Electronic Voting Machine , which is able to include for 16 candidates . In paragraph - 12 of the examination in chief election petitioner has stated that after notice containing the names of validly nominated candidates to contest the election was affixed the order rejecting the nomination paper was not made available to him . In paragraph - 13 of the examination in chief election petitioner has stated that all concerned were communicated about the illegality, irregularity committed by the Returning Officer. In paragraph- 14 ofthe examination in chief election petitioner has stated that he was compelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court for violation of his statutory right to contest the election. In paragraph - 1 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that at the time of filing of nomination paper for the impugned election his age was 58 years , which was mentioned in the nomination paper. In paragraph - 2 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that earlier he had not contested any election . In paragraph- 3 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that he is associated with Trade Union i.e. C.F.T.U.I. In paragraph - 4 ofthe cross examination election petitioner has stated that besides being associated with the aforesaid Trade Union he is not engaged in any other work and he also does not own any ration shop . In paragraph - 5 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that he has seen the report dated 20-4-2009 of Sri Bijendra Jha submitted in connection with verification of the signature of his proposers . In paragraph - 6 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that on the date of nomination i.e. 18-4-2009 the voter identity card and the signature of all the 10 proposers was verified and at the time of verification allthe 10 proposers were present but on the date of scrutiny one of the 10 proposers was absent . In paragraph - 7 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that on 19-4-2009 he was informed by the office of the Returning Officer on his cell phone to come and collect important instruction, accordingly, he approached the office of the Returning Officer where he was handed over letter dated 19-4-2009 , which is also annexed as Annexure - 4 to his election petition. In paragraph - 8 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that under letter dated [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934

that he put his signature on the nomination paper before theReturning Officer on 20-4-2009 . In paragraph- 8 of the examination in chief witness has stated that he returned back home in the evening after 3 P.M. In paragraph -9 . of the examination in chief witness has stated that he was also a voter for the impugned election . In paragraph- 1 of the cross examination witness has stated that having seen part 2 of the nomination paper filed by the election petitioner he identified his name at' serial no.7 and states that therein he has mentioned constituency no.190 , part no.104 and serial no.5211 . In paragraph- 2 of the cross examination witness volunteers that the entries made in part 2 of the nomination paper of the election petitioner against his name is on the basis of the voter slip , which was givento him for the last Assembly Election held in the month of November , 2005 , In paiagraph- 3 of the cross examinationwitness has further stated that statement made in paragraph -3 of his examination in chief that his name is at serial no . 173 and part no . 178 has not been stated in the electionpetition.

7. Respondent no . 1 has examined two officials as witness on his behalf. Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha, District Magistrate , Patna Cum Returning Officer is R. W. - 1 Sri Bijendra Jha , Additional District Magistrate (General ) , Patna is R. W. 2 .

19-4-2009 he wasdirected by the Retuming Officer to produce his 10 proposers for verification oftheir signature onthe date ofscrutiny i.e. 20-4-2009. In paragraph-9 ofthe cross examination election petitioner has stated that on 20-4-2009 the date of scrutiny his proposer Tapeshwar Thakur has not gone for verification of his signature. In paragraph - 10 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that he is not a handwriting expert to comment on the finding of the Assistant Returning Officer that the signature of Sri Manish Kumar Sinha on his nomination paperis different from the signature of Sri Manish Kumar Sinha which he put on the nomination paper at the time of verification but Sri Manish Kumar Sinha was present on the date of verification scrutiny. In paragraph- 11 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that Sri Manish Kumar Sinha did not put his signature on his nomination paper at the time' of verificat ! on ofhis signature and that he was not present at the time of verification and that some other person was . presentwho put his signature. In paragraph - 12 ofthe cross examination election petitioner has stated that as he has not been asked about the grounds of rejection of his nomination paper he has not stated such fact in his cross examination . In paragraph - 13 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that under order dated 20-4-2009 passed by the Returning Officer reasons for rejecting his nomination paper has been indicated . In paragraph - 14 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that one of the grounds for rejecting his 'nomination paper under order dated 20-4-2009 is thatpart number and serial number ofhis 7th proposer Md. Safikur Rahman did nottally with part no . 190-104 , serial no.5211 of the voter list of Patna Sahib Assembly Constituency, which is incorrect as the same was verified at the time of filing of nomination paper from the new voter list . In paragraph-15 ofthe cross examination election petitioner has stated that inparagraph -23 of his election petition he has stated on oath that part number and serial number of proposer no.7 asindicated in the nomination paper did not tally with the voter list , which is not a defect . In paragraph - 16 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that in Annexure - 1 appended with Form 26 he has given required details regarding the three criminal cases pending against him by indicating the number of those cases as also the court in which the cases are pending and the date on which cognizance has been taken together with the stage ofthe trial in the three pending cases . In paragraph - 17 of the cross examination election petitioner has stated that while giving the details of his liabilities on affidavit appended with Form 26 he has indicated the amount due fromhim but not the complete address of the Branch ofthe Bank in which the amount is due . In paragraph - 18 of the cross examination election petitioner has refuted the suggestion that he being the election petitioner has deposed falselybefore this Court .

(a) R W. 1 stated in paragraph- 1 of his examination inchief that he was the Returning Officer for conducting the impugned election . In paragraph - 2 of the examination in chief R. W. 1 has stated that the last date for filing of nomination paper was 18-4-2009 and the date of scrutiny of nomination paper was scheduled for 20-4-2009 . In paragraph - 3 of the examination - in - chief R. W. 1 has stated that itwas considered necessary to verify genuineness of proposers of independent candidates who have filed their nomination paper and as per instruction Sri Anil Kumar , ' Deputy Election Officer and also Incharge of Confidential Section had called independent candidates on 19-4-2009 and directed them to corne with their 10 proposers on the date of scrutiny for verification of their signature so as to establish genuineness of signature of the proposers . In paragraph - 4 of the examination- in- chief R W. 1 has stated that part number and serial number of one of the proposer in the nomination paper filed by the election petitioner at serial no . 7 did not tally with the voter list . In paragraph - 5 ofthe examination in chief R.W. I has stated that officers were deputed on the day of scrutiny of nomination paper for verification of the signature of the proposers so as to ascertain their genuineness . In paragraph - 6 of the examination in chiefRW. 1 has stated that election petitioner in spite of direction to bring 10 proposers for verification oftheir signature brought only 9 proposers for verification of signature on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers . Out of 9 proposers brought by the election petitioner on the date of scrutiny for verification of their signature , signature of proposer at serial no . 10 Sri Manish Kumar (f) P.W. 6 is Md. Shafiqur Rahman proposer no.7 of theelectionpetitioner. InIn paragraphs -2 , 3 oftheofthe examination in chief witness has stated that he is a voter from 184, Patna Sahib Assembly Constituency and his name is found mentioned in part no . 178 , serial no . 173. In paragraphs - 4 , 5 of the examination in chief witness has stated that election petitioner filed nomination paper on 18-4-2009 in his presence . In paragraph -6 of the examination in chiefwitness has stated that he was also present during scrutiny of the nomination paperof the election petitioner on 20.4.2009 . In paragraph - 7 of the examination in chief witness has stated [PART II-SEC . 3(iii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934

aware as to how many nomination papers were received by the Assistant Returning Officer during the period between 1.30 P.M. to 3 P.M. on 17.4.2009 . In paragraph - 11 ofthe cross examination R. W. 1 has stated that he did not receive anynomination paper on 18.4.2009 . In paragraph- 12 of the crossexamination R.W. 1 has stated that during the 2009 Parliamentary Election , Election Commission permitted entry of five persons with the candidate of recognized political party, independent candidates , however, were at liberty to go with all the proposers . In paragraph- 13 ofthe cross - examination R.W. 1 has stated that at the time of receipt of the nomination paper preliminary scrutiny as regards the documents appended with the nomination paper was conducted by the Assistant Returning Officer . In paragraph- 14 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that scrutiny of nomination paper filed for contesting the impugned election was conducted in the office of the Returning Officer i.e. office of the District Magistrate, Patna. In paragraph - 15 ofthe cross examination R. W. I has stated that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper all the observers appointed by the Election Commission of India were present. In paragraph - 16 of the cross examination RW. 1 clarified that Election Commission had appointed three observers . In paragraph- 17 ofthe cross - examination R.W. 1 stated that he has made statement in paragraph 16 of the cross -examination on the basis of his recollection that there were three observers , one was a lady Mrs. Usha , another Mr. Upadhyay and the 3rd was Mr. Kaul , whose names must be in the record . In paragraph - 18 of the cross examination RW. 1 has stated that during the scrutiny the candidates were asked to wait in the hail with liberty to enter the Chamber of the Returning Officer as and when they desired. The candidate whose nomination paper was under scrutiny was asked to be present along with his proposers . The observers appointed by the Election Commission remained present during the scrutiny of every nomination paper. In paragraph - 19 of the cross examination RW. 1 has stated that he does not remember the name of those candidates who objected during the scrutiny of the nomination paper of other candidate( s ) . In paragraph -20 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that during the scrutiny of the nomination paper the candidates were allowed to come with their assistants whose number was not restricted . In paragraph - 21 of the cross examination RW. 1 has stated that it is not correct to suggest that he did not allow even the candidates to look into their own nomination paper at the time of scrutiny. Such suggestion is incorrect as observers were there to check his action . He further stated that even without the presence of the observers , he would have allowed the candidate to remain present at the time of scrutiny and to see his nomination paper. In paragraph - 22 of the cross examination R. W. 1 has stated that he does not remember whether on 20-4-2009 he had taken lunch . In paragraph -23 of the cross examination RW. 1 has stated that he did not remember the exact time when he took lunch during the period between Sinha did not match with his earlier signature put on the nomination form. In paragraph- 7 of the examination -in- chief R. W. 1 has stated that the nomination of the election petitioner was rejected as part number and serial number of his proposer no.7 Md . Shafikur Rahman did not tally with the voter list . In paragraph - 8 of the examination in chief R. W. I has stated that on the date of scrutiny i.e. 20-4-2009 as directed election petitioner was required to come with his 10proposers for verification of their signature but election petitioner came with only 9 proposers for verification of their signature and signature of one of the proposer at serial no. 5 Sri Tapeshwar Thakur could not be verified as he was not present . Further out of the 9 proposer brought by the election petitioner on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper signature of proposer at serial no . 10 Sri Manish Kumar Sinha did not match with his earlier signature put on the nomination form . In paragraph - 9 of the examination in chief R. W. I has stated that candidates were given full opportunity and liberty to examine nomination paper of other candidates and scrutiny of nomination papers was performed in the presence of Central Election Observer deputed by Election Commission of India aswell as candidates who had filed nomination paper and were present on the date of scrutiny. In paragraph- 10 of the examination in chief R. W. 1 has stated that he prepared and maintained separate ordersheet for the scrutiny of the nomination paper of each candidate and accordingly, he prepared separate ordersheet regarding scrutiny of the nomination paper of the election petitioner . The said ordersheet contains the ground for rejection of nomination paper ofthe election petitioner. In paragraph - 1 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that nomination paper for contesting impugned election could be filed between 11-4-2009-18-4-2009 . In paragraph - 2 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that date for scrutiny was fixed for 20-4-2009 . In paragraph- 3 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that for contesting the impugned election 33 candidates filed nomination paper. In paragraph- 4 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that he was Returning Officer for the impugned election but not for 31 Patliputra Parliamentary Constituency. In paragraph- 5 of the cross examination R. W. 1 has stated that 16 candidates were allowed to contest the impugned election . In paragraph - 6 of the cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that Electronic Voting Machine can contain the name of16 candidates . In paragraph -7 of the cross examination R. W. 1 has stated that he does not remember the exact number ofparts of the nomination papar, perhaps it is 3 or 4.Inparagraph- 8 ofthe cross examination R. W. 1 has stated that he cannot say as to how much time it was actually takento receive the nomination paper as he had authorised Assistant Returning Officer to receive the nomination papers as per law. In paragraph - 9 of the cross examination R. W. I has stated that number of nomination paper filed on 17.4.2009 must be available on the records. In paragraph- 10 ofthe cross examination R.W. 1 has stated that he is not [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( iii) ] [PART II-SEC . 3 ( iii)] 29
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934 [PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)] [PART II-SEC . 3(iii) ] 31
30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934 33
34 32
11-4-2009-21-4-2009 . In paragraph - 24 of the cross Officer, R. W. 1 to verify the signature of the proposers of conducting the impugned election his conscience was very
cross examination R. W. 2 stated that he had to verify the submitted that the last ground taken in support of the 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further set ofnomination paper, serial no . 57 filed by the petitioner was as to whether the nomination papers of Ram Kumar 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
electoral rolls and, therfore, in our opinion , the election 29. It is further submitted that to overcome the examination RW. 1 has stated that signature of the proposers the independent candidates but in compliance of such Md . Safikur Rahman did not tally with the voter list . clear as ample and adequate opportunity was providedto
signature of proposers and not to verify the proposers submitted that nexus and ill motive of Returning Officer to rejection order dated 20.4.2009 that the averments made in ofthe independent candidate was verified during scrutiny. on the said ground besides the other grounds taken in Jha were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and submitted that from the deposition ofthe Returning Officer
aforesaid vital defect about the serial, part number of petitioner for the puspose ofmaintaining an election petition illegally help respondent No.l is also evident from the direction R. W. -2 obtained signature of the 9 proposers of According to him part number, serial number of proposer all the candidates who filed nomination paper( s) for
appearing before him that they signed the nomination paper shall be deemed tobe a candidate ." affidavit supporting form 26 and affidavit, Annexure - 1 were In paragraph-25 of the cross examination R. W. 1 has stated connection with nomination paper no. 56 filed by the the petitioner in the margin of the photostat copy ofpart -2 the appellant's election is therefore void under Section 100 andAddl . District Magistrate ( General ), Patna, R. W. 1 , 2 it no.7 Md . Safikur Rahman was verified at the time of
proposer no.7 the election petitioner after conclusion of pleadings made in the election petition and deposition not similar is also not a defect for rejecting the nomination (1) (c) ofthe Act. " contesting the impugned election.
the examination of witnesses hunted details and produced as proposer before filing of the nomination paper. In the that signature of the proposers who were present at the election petitioner. ofthe nomination form of the independent candidate (s) is quite evident that R. W. 2 obtained signature in verification presentation of the nomination paper and it is palpably
same paragraph witness further states that person who supporting the same that the Returning Officer of the form by the Returning Officer as the facts mentioned in 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference overphoto copy of part 2 of the nomination form , set No.57 incorrect to state that part number and serial number ofhis
Md. Safikur Rahman (proposer no.7) for examination as a impugned election as also for 31 - Patliputra Parliamentary time of presentation of the nomination paper by the including the petitioner for both the sets of the nomination 33. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied (b) R. W. 2 Bijendra Jha stated in paragraph- I ofhis
appeared as Sri Manish Kumar Sinha , one of the proposers to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Viveka form 26 are as per the questionnaire incorporated therein candidate their signature was verified at the time of paper of the petitioner numbered as 56 and 57 which was without giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce proposer no.7 as mentioned in part 2 of his nomination examination in chief that during the impugned election he
witness on 19-1-2012 and examined him with the permission Constituency allowed only 16 out of the 33 candidates and the contents of affidavit, Annexure - 1 is affirmed in no.l has further referred to the statement made by the on the following passage in the judgment of Supreme Court
ofthe Court . In examination in chief proposer no.7, P.W. 6 ofthe election petitioner and signed the nomination paper NandGiri Vs. Nawal Kishore Sahi, AIR 1984 Supreme Court presentation but those proposers who were not available perused by this Court and the act of obtaining signature his one of the proposer Tapeshwar Thakur for verification was posted at Patna as Additional District form is incorrect . According to learned counsel for
for the purpose of verification of his earlier signature , his 856 placing reliance on Sub -Section (4) of Section 33 ofthe who filed their nomination form for contesting the election terms of the column prescribed therein. According to election petitioner in his cross - examination that he is not a inthe case ofHira Singh Pal Vs. Madan Lal , AIR 1968 of his signature until 21.4.2009 4.15 P.M. , though such
admitted that he has mentioned constituency no.190 and at the time of presentation of nomination paper for for verification over photo copy of part -2 of the nomination respondent no. 1 part no . 190-104 and serial number 5211 is Magistrate (General ) , Patna. In paragraph - 2 of the
signature did not match with the earlier signature. In Act and the passage quoted below reiterated his from the two constituency to contest the election and learned counsel for the petitioner Returning Officer was handwriting expert to comment on the findings of R. W. 2 Supreme Court 1179. privilege was allowed to another candidate Hassan Faizi nowhere mentioned in the voter list of Patna Sahib
part no. 104 serial no. 5211 in part 2 ofthe nomination paper rejected the nomination form of 17 candidates including verification of their signature another opportunity was who was entrusted with the job of signature verification . It form is illegal and against the law as well as instruction Azami . examination in chief R. W. 2 has stated that during the
paragraph - 8 of the cross examination R. W. 2 has stated submission that nomination paper of election petitioner bentupon to reject the nomination form of the petitioner in given by giving separate notice to all the candidates Parliamentary Constituency, as such, the factum of its
of the election petitioner. Having said as above , P.W. 6 the petitioner to accommodate the contesting candidates isfurther submitted that election petitioner had only stated issued by the Election Commission of India in handbook impugned election he was also assigned the work of "That, however , is not the end of the matter. All that
that verification of signature of the proposers was not made should not have been rejected for giving incorrect part, favour of respondent no . 1 violating the norms for rejection including those candidates signature of whose proposers verification as stated by the election petitioner is false . In verification of signature of proposer(s ) who had put their
further admitted that entries made in part 2 ofthe nomination in one E.V.M. , which can contain 16 contesting candidates of nomination paper as mentioned in the Act and the that R. W. 2 was not Assistant Returning Officer but was forReturningOfficer for 2009 General Election . In terms of wehave to consider in this appeal is whether the Returning 18. Leamed counsel for the petitioner with reference
paper of the election petitioner against the name of the during the scrutiny or at the time of filing ofthe nomination serial number ofhis proposer no . 7 in the nomination paper. in compliance of the wish of his master who brought the stood already verified . In paragraph - 26 of the cross the instructions of the Election Commission of India Officer was right in rejecting the nomination of the this connection, reliance is placed over paragragh- 14 of signature on nomination papers as proposers filed by the
paper but a separate time was fixed for verific ation of the Handbook for Returning Officer issued by the Election examination R. W. 1 has stated that it is incorrect to suggest posted as A.D.M. at Patna. It is submitted that from the to deposition of R.W. 2 in paragraph 2 of his cross the cross - examination ofP. W. - 5 which is reproduced below
witness (P.W. 6) was on the basis of voter slip which was "The Returning Officer has deposed as RW- 7 about the Returning Officer from Tripura to Bihar as both being native Commission of India for 2009 elections to ensure victory of records i e.verification report it is apparent that signature signature in verification is required to be taken in the margin respondent . As mentioned earlier , the errors found in the examination submitted that he had no occasion to go independent candidates for contesting the impugned
signature of the proposers . In paragraph -9 of the cross that he did not allow the election petitioner to bring his of the original part- 2 where seven columns have been nomination papers are purely clerical errors . The Returning election. In paragraph - 3 of the examination in chiefR. W. 2 for ready reference :-
givento him for the last assembly election held in the month examination R. W. 2 has stated that as per his recollection, rejection of those four nomination papers EX.2 to (sic ) on of Harnaut are neighbour. Thus, it is evident that the respondent no . 1 ofproposer no . 10 put at the time of filling the nomination through the Handbook of the Returning Officer issued by
ofNovember, 2005 and that his name is at serial no. 173 of Returning Officer was apparently not impartial and defeated 10thproposer on 21-4-2009 for verification of his signature. provided but with ill motive and to filter the candidates Officer had the duty to scrutinize the nomination papers the Election Commission of India for conducting the has stated that as per instruction issued a number of
the date fixed for verification of the signature of the the above grounds by his orders Exs . B to B- 3 . The witness further volunteers that any candidate who form and the other signature put at the time of verification "One of the grounds for rejecting my nomination paper
part no. 178 ofthe voter list issued for the impugned election the statutory right of the petitioner to contest the impugned 24. In the light of the submissions made above , prayer did not tally at all . signature in verification was obtained from the proposers when they were presented for finding out whether there impugned election , yet he was authorised by the Returning under order dated 20-4-2009 is that part number and serial independent candidates came on 20.4.2009 along with their
has not been stated in the election petition. proposers was 20.4.2009 at about 11 A.M. In paragraph- 10 election. S.100 ( 1 ) (c) ofthe Act provides that if the High Court is of has been made to set aside the order rejecting the asked for time was granted time until 21.4.2009 . In on the instructions of the Returning Officer by R.W. 2 on wereany clerical mistakes in the same. Under that provision proposers for required verification and they were required
of the cross examination R. W. 2 has stated that no time paragraph - 27 of the cross examination R W. 1 has stated Officer to perform the important task of verification of number ofmy proposer Md. Safikur Rahman did not tally
the opinion that any nomination paper has been improperly nomination paper of the election petitioner and to declare the photostat copy of part -2 of the nomination paper of he was required to find out whether the names of the signature of the independent candidates. withpart no.190-104 , serial no.5211 ofthe voter list of Patna to sign adjacent to their respective signature on the 34. Learned counsel for respondent no . 1 further
limitwas fixed for verification of signature ofthe proposers . rejected it shall declare the election of the returned theelection of respondent no.1 as void. that he issued notice to all the independent candidates to 30. In view ofthe aforesaid statement made by P.W. 6 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that election petitioner did not choose to each candidate, which is illegal . In this connection, it is candidates as well as their proposers and seconders were nomination paper filed by the candidates . In paragraph -4
In paragraph - 11 ofthe cross examination R. W. 2 has stated make available their proposers so as to verify the Sahib Assembly Constituency, which is incorrect as the
learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that until submittedthat nomination paper of the election petitioner candidate to be void . On a consideration of the evidence produce Sri Manish Kumar Sinha to state that the signature furthersubmitted that signature of Sri Manish Kumar Sinha correctly mentioned in the nomination papers . He was also same was verified at the time of filing of the nomination of the examination in chief R. W. 2 has stated that election 19. Learned counsel also submitted that from
the presentation of the nomination paper, its scrutiny and that after 20.4.2009 no further opportunity was given to the was improperly rejected under order dated 20.4.2009 with available on the record and the arguments of the learned genuineness of the proposers and their signature put over 25. Learned counsel for respondent no . 1 with put by him against his name in part 2 of the nomination proposer No. 10 of the petitioner could not be verified by paragraph 14 ofthe cross examination of election petitioner requiredto see whether their place in the electoral roll was paper from the new voter list . " petitioner came with only 9 proposers for verification of
selection petitioner to bring his one of the proposers , who conclusion ofthe examination ofR. W. 1 neither the election reference to the provisions contained in Sub- Section (2)( c) counsel for the parties in the light of the authorities placed the nomination form, such notice was issued after informal reference to the averments made in paragraphs - 21 and 27 form ofthe election petitioner and the other put by him at R. W.- 2 is totally false, incorrect and manipulation to defeat it would appear that part No.190-104 serial No. 5211 correctly mentioned in the nomination papers . Evidently, signature of the proposers . In paragraph - 5 of the
petitioner nor any of the witnesses examined on his behalf was not available for verification of his signature on ofSection 36 of the Act but there is hardly any facts stated before him the Learned Single Judge found that no consultation with the observers appointed by the Election of the election petition submitted that election petitioner the time of verification were his signature . the statutory right of the election petitioner to contest the theReturning Officer failed in his duty. Further, when he mentioned in the nomination paper ofthe petitioner against examination in chief R.W. 2 has stated that out of 9 26. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 further
were aware about the correct position of his proposer no.7 20.4.2009. In paragraph- 12 of the cross examination R. W.2 in the rejection order to substantiate the ground taken in Commission of India as they were receiving complaints nomination paper could be rejected unless the defect is of has challenged the impugned election on two grounds i.e. election. the name of his proposer No.7 Shafiqur Rahman was scrutinized the nomination papers on January 21 , 1967, he proposers brought by the election petitioner for verification referredto paragraph- 15 ofthe cross - examination of election
in the voter list published for conducting the impugned has stated that he is not aware that another candidate Hasan support of the order that the signature of the candidate or that there are many nomination papers with fake proposers . a substantial character as pointed out even in para 13 (i ) of improper rejection of nomination paper of the election verified at the time of filing of nomination paper from the had before him all the required information. It may be that petitioner, P. W. - 5 where the election petitioner has admitted of signature , signature of Sri Manish Kumar Sinha prima 35. Learned counsel for respondent no.l further
election. It is thus submitted that during the scrutiny of the Faizi Azami contesting the impugned election was given the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine. the Handbook for Returning Officers issued by the Election Inparagraph - 28 of the cross examination R. W. 1 has stated petitioner as also on the ground of corrupt practice but submitted that in paragraph no.8 election petitioner claims new voter list issued for the impugned election vide serial while scrutinizing the first nomination paper ( marked as the statement made in paragraph - 23 of his election petition faciedid not match with the signature put by Sri Sinha on 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
nomination paper before the Returning Officer neither the opportunity to bring one ofhis proposers on 21.4.2009 for Commission of India and that the difference in the age of that no sooner the order rejecting the nomination paper of during the trial the ground of corrupt practice appears to that he had filed written application before the Returning No.173 and part No.178, which is evident from paragraph- submitted that on the date of scrutiny the Returning Officer No.5) he had no material before him to find out whether the the nomination form of the petitioner. In paragraph - 6 ofthe that he has stated on oath that part number and serial
election petitioner nor any of his representative including verification of his signature . In paragraph- 13 of the cross the election petitioner was passed the same was directed have been abandoned by the election petitioner, as such , the candidate as given in the electoral roll and the 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted Officer to produce his proposer Sri Tapeshwar. Thakur for 3 of the examination in chief of proposer No.7 i.e. Safikur did not perm it the petitioner and other candidates to proposer of the candidate was really an elector in the examination in chief R. W. 2 has stated that during the 2009 number of his proposer no.7 as indicated in the nomination
proposer no.7 clarified the correct part number and serial that the rejection order dated 20.4.2009 , Annexure - 7 was examination R. W. 2 has stated that at the time of filing of the averment made in paragraph 27 is fit to be deleted . As to be given to the election petitioner but if he did not nomination papers is not a material error and no opportunity verification of his signature on 21-4. -2009 but he neither Rahman , P.W. 6 . examine either his own nomination paper or nomination paper part 2 did not tally with the voter list, which is not a Lok Sabha Election he was entrusted with the verification constituency or not, but when he came to the second
number of proposer no.7 which is defect of substantial the nomination paper he was not asked to verify the received by the election petitioner in connection with regards the allegation of improper rejection of the was given to the candidate , Ram Kumar Jha when the receive the order soon after scrutiny, no such complaint called that petition from the custody of Returning Officer paper of other candidates violating the provision of law defect . It is further submitted that election petitioner while of signature of the proposers of the independent nomination paper where the proposer's name as well as his
nature and the Returning Officer had no alternative , except nomination form No.56 on 18.5.2009 after petitioner applied signature of the proposers . In paragraph- 14 of the cross was made by him as he was not aware of any such nomination paper of the election petitioner raised in nor he annexed copy of the said petition with the election enshrined under Sub-section- (5) of Section 36 of the Act candidates for ascertaining that the signature of the admitting the statement made in paragraph 23 ofthe election 20.Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted
nomination papers were filed on 2.5.1980 to remove any place in the electoral roll is correctly mentioned , it was
to reject the nomination paper of the election petitioner. for grant of certified copy on 8.5.2009 wherefrom it appears examination R W. 2 has stated that it is incorrect to suggest complaint. In paragraph -29 of the cross examination R. W. 1 paragraph 21 of the election petition , it is submitted that defect though Section 3 3 (4) of the Act lays down that on petition nor produced the copy of the petition during his that rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner with and thereby achieved the goal to help the sole respondent . proposers on the nomination paper is by a genuine elector. petition was required to have given the correct part number improper on his part to have rejected that nomination paper.
that nomination form of the election petitioner was thathe has deposed by making false statement only with a has stated that Assistant Returning Officer received the the nomination paper of the election petitioner was fit to be the presentation of the nomination on papers the Returning evidence and in this background, it is submitted that the reference to part , serial number of proposer No.7 is not a and serial number of his proposer no.7 , if at all the name of In paragraph - 1 of the cross examination RW. 2 has stated
subjected to scrutiny on 20.4.2009 between 11 A.M. to rejected on the sole ground that part number and serial 31. To support the aforesaid contention learned defect as the same has been considered by this Court in proposer no.7 was in the voter list but he was not aware of It is true that in that nomination paper , it had been mentioned 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted
nominationpaper from the election petitioner and verified view to support the returned candidate . Officer shall satisfy himself that the names and electoral plea to produce proposer Tapeshwar Thakur for signature that earlier he was posted in Patna Collectorate for about that the candidate's name is found at serial No..504 of part
counsel for respondent no . 1 has relied on the following 3 P.M. in presence of the observers appointed by the or not the entries made in connection with the proposer at one ofthe election petition as well as by the Apex Court in verification on 21-4-2009 is afterthought and fails to inspire the same . thatReturning Officer was so biased and motivated against
number ofproposer no . 7 of the election petitioner as stated roll numbers of the candidates and their proposers as three years . In paragraph -2 of the cross examination R. W. 2 2 of 9 -Arki Assembly Constituency though in fact it is
judgments of the Supreme Court i.e. Brij Mohan Vs. Sat Election Commission of India named in the order but those serial no.7 of the nomination paper can only be confirmed in part 2 of the nomination form of the election petitioner 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference the case ofNandiesha Reddy V s . Kavitha Mahesh, (2011) confidence , the Returning Officer rightly rejected the the petitioner that even after publication of list of validly
to the pleadings made in the election petition as also the entered in the nomination papers are the same as those has stated that Handbook of the Returning Officer issued nominated candidate for contesting the impugned election found at serial No. 504 in part 12 of that constituency; but 27. It is further submitted that neither in the election
averments appears to be false and incorrect as the said fact Pal, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 847 , paragraphs 20 , 22, 25 . byAssistant Returning Officer. In the same paragraph the didnot match with the voter list . The election petitioner in entered in the electoral roll . The learned judge held that the 7 Supreme Court Cases 721 , paragraph 24, 25 whereofhas nomination paper for failure to produce Tapeshwar Thakur by the Election Commission of India is meant for the
isnot evident from the cassette furnished by the Returning Lila Krishan Vs. Mani Ram Godara and others , AIR. 1985 evidence led on behalf of the election petitioner submitted been relied upon , which is quoted herein below for ready petition nor in the evidence of election petitioner P.W. -5 , on the notice board on 21-4-2009 at 4.30 P.M. petitioner fromthe first nomination paper, the Returning Officer could
witness further volunteers that at the time of scrutiny of paragraph 23 ofhis election petition admits that part number rejection of the nomination papers Exts . 2, 2 - a and 2 - c by reference :- for signature verification. Returning Officer and as he was not the Returning Officer there is any whisper that proposer no.7 of the election have easily found out the correct part of the electoral roll .
Officer to this Court which was seen by the Court in Supreme Court 1073 , paragraphs 15, 16. Bhogendra Jha Vs. nominating paper having seen the entries made against and serial number of proposer no.7 Sri Safikur Rahman that the Returning, Officer allowed the election petitioner in the 2009 Parliamentary Election, he had no occasion to was not given the copy ofthe order rejecting his nomination
presence of the counsel and the parties as therefrom it and other independent candidates only 18 hours notice for the Returning Officer was improper. In that view he allowed petitioner Md . Safikur Rahman was a voter in the paper as is mandatory under sub - Section- (6) of Section 36 All the required information was before him . Obviously he 36. Before proceeding to consider the rival
Manoj Kumar Jha , AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2099 , proposer no.7 he pointed out to the election petitioner that mentioned in part 2 of the nomination paper did not tally the election petition without costs only to the extent of go through the Handbook but he is aware about few ofthe rejected the nomination papers for the reason that the
appears that only Returning Officer was sitting in his paragraphs 6, 7 , 10 . production of the 10 proposers for verification of their "24. We are of the opinion that when a nomination paper is submissions made by the election petitioner and the Constituency together with his correct part number and oftheAct . Copy ofthe order rejecting the nomination paper
Constituency No.190 is not within Patna Sahib with the voter list but election petitioner further states in setting aside the appellants election as being void which instructions contained in the Handbook. In paragraph -3 of respondent was only a dummy candidate but that was not
Chamber during the scrutiny and none of the observers signature which is bad in law in the light of proviso to presented it is bounden duty of the Returning Officer to Returned Candidate Respondent No.1 it is necessary to serial number in the voter list published for impugned ofthe petitioner was not given to the petitioner even after
Parliamentary Constituency but the election petitioner did paragraph 23 that it is not a defect . There is no averment in was the only relief prayed for in the election petition . the cross examination R.W. 2 has stated that he does not election . In this connection , it is submitted that it is an a matter for him to decide . If he was a dummy candidate
were seen as the three observers appointed by the Election sub- section-(5 ) of Section 36 of theAct. 32. Learned counsel for respondent no.l next receive the nomination, perused it, point out the defect, if examine the contents of the order dated 20-4-2009 passed submission of the representation dated 24-4-2009
not accept the suggestion and maintained that the entries the entire election petition that proposer no . 7 Md . Safikur remember the exact number of Assistant Returning Officers there was occasion for him to withdraw his candidature
Commission of India on the date of scrutiny were on visit made in the nomination paper against proposer No.7 is Rahman is a voter of the constituency with reference to his submitted that from the records of the case particularly Before us , Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Counsel who any, and allow the candidate to rectify the defects and by the Returning Officer rejecting Nomination Paper Nos . admitted fact that neither the election petitioner nor anyone Annexure - 6 and petitioner had to apply for grant of certified
signature verification report of Sri Bijendra Jha, Additional 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted when the defects are not removed then alone the question appointed for conducting the impugned election . One of onhis behalf clarified before the Returning Officer at the copy on 8.5.2009.It. is submitted that modus operandi of after the scrutiny ofthe nomination papers . Therefore , it is
to Rajgir, Pawapuri in the district of Nalanda and Kakolat correct as he was more concerned about his 5th proposer correct part number and serial number in the voter list . It is appeared for the appellant proceeded to draw our attention theAssistant Returning Officer was D.C.L.R, Patna Sadar. 56, 57 ofthe election petitioner.
water fall in the district of Nawada . Tapeshwar Thakur who was not available for verification District Magistrate ( General ), Patna, R.W. - 2 who was that by not permitting the election petitioner to produce to the evidence of certain witnesses including that of Ram ofrejection of nomination would arise . Any other view, in time of scrutiny the correct part number and serial number the Returning Officer was to filter the candidate keeping in quite clear that the respondent's nomination papers were
further submitted that admittedly part number and serial hisproposer Tapeshwar Thakur on 21.4.2009 for verification In paragraph -4 of the cross examination R W. 2 has stated ofproposer no.7 of the election petitioner. improperly rejected . Such a rejection was mpermissible 37. Perusal of the order dated 20-4-2009 passed
assigned specific work of signature verification of the Kumar Jha'sbrother Birendra Kumar Jha R W -9 for proving our opinion , will lead to grave consequences and the mind success of respondent No.1 in the impugned election
ofhis signature . In paragraph - 30 of the cross examination number ofMd . Safikur Rahman proposer no.7 as stated in ofhis signature the Returning Officer discriminated against posers of independent candidates it appears that that he is not aware as to which of the Assistant Returning rejecting Nomination Paper No. 56 ofthe election petitioner under Section 36 and the same is a ground for setting aside
R. W. 1 has stated that voter list which has been shown to 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further Returning Officers may start refusing to accept the for which R.W. - I a caste man of Hon ' ble the Chief 28. It is further submitted that Returning Officer R.W. I
part 2 of the nomination form of the election petitioner is election petitioner on the date of scrutiny i.e. 20-4-2009 him as other independent candidate Mr. Hasan Faizi Azami that Ram Kumar Jha had filed the nomination papers Officer was authorised to receive the nomination paper indicates that scrutiny of Nomination Paper No. 56 of the the election under Section 100 of the Representation of
submitted that defect about the part number and roll him is not the voter list of part number which is mentioned 190-104 and 5211 which is not correct . It is submitted that pursuant to some collusion with the object of enabling an nomination at the threshold which may ensure victory of a in his cross - examination has made categorical statement Minister belonging to Harnaut in the district of Nalanda
number ofproposer No.7 ofthe election petitioner as stated made available 9 out ofhis 10 proposers for verification of was allowed time until 9.15 A.M. on 21.4.2009 for production particular candidate at the election . This is a fraught with from the candidates who wanted to contest the impugned election petitioner was taken up on 20-4-2009 in presence thePeopleAct .
in the original nomination form and the voter list is in the nomination paper of the election petitioner against election petitioner P. W. 5 in his examination in chief is silent of his proposer who was not available for verification of election petition being filed against any successful danger, difficult to fathom . election. In paragraph -5 of the cross examination R.W. 2 that there is no constituency no.190 within Patna Sahib - and I.A.S. Officer of Tripura cadre was brought to Bihar
their signature, the signature ofproposer no . 10 Sri Manish Parliamentary Constituency. In the light of the assertion of of Observers appointed by the Election Commission of and appointed Collector, Patna and then appointed as
misconceived in view of the provision of Sub- Section- (4) proposer no.7 . In paragraph- 31 of the cross examination on the issue of correctness or otherwise of part number Kumar Sinha did not tally with the signature earlier put by his signature on 20.4.2009, which is demonstrative of the candidate. But, for want of specific allegation about any has stated that verification means to verify the things for India M/s K. Usha, R.K. Upadhyay and Rahul Kaul . During For the reasons mentioned above , we dismiss this
R. W. I has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that and serial number of his proposer no . 7 , as stated in part 2 collusion or fraud and also an issue regarding any collusion which an officer is deputed or authorised. In paragraph - 6 the Returning Officer election petitioner enquired and Returning Officer by the Election Commission to conduct appeal but in the circumstances of the case, we direct that 25. Section 33 (4) of the Act, casts duty on a
of Section 33 of the Act, in terms whereof discrepancy in Sri Manish Kumar Sinha in part 2 ofthe nomination form of biasofthe Returning Officer against the petitioner with the we declined to hear any argument on the question of discovered that part number and serial number of his scrutiny Nomination Paper No. 56 filed by the election the impugned election and having achieved the success of
statement made by him during the cross examination is ofhis nomination form . It is further submitted that during solemotive to help the returned candidate. Returning Officer to satisfy himself that the names and the of the cross examination R.W. 2 has stated that in the petitioner on 18-4-2009 at 11.25 A.M. was perused. Service the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. "
the part number and serial number of the proposer as false and that he has made false statement only to support the cross -examination election petitioner disputed the fact the election petitioner, which is also vital and substantial collusion . Consequently, the only point which was proposer no.7 as stated in part 2 of his nomination paper respondent No. 1 in the election R. W. 1 was awarded with
mentioned in the nomination form and the voter list is not defect in the light of the provisions contained in Sub- electoral Roll numbers of the candidates and their proposers nomination form there is no separate column for verification report of the notice issued for production of the proposers
respondent no . 1. The witness further volunteers that while that part number and serial number of his proposer no.7 canvassed before us by Dr. Singhvi appearing for the 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted as entered in the nomination paper are the same as in the of the signature of the proposers . In paragraph - 7 of the filed for contesting the impugned election is incorrect . posting in the secretariat of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
a defect and should have been ignored section 2(c) of Section 36 of the Act . The Returning Officer for verification of their signature in terms of Sub - section Bihar.
849713-5 849513-6 thatR. W. - 2Sri Bijendra Jha was directed by the Returning appellant and Mr. L.R. Singh appearing for the respondent (2) (c) of Section 36 of the Act is found preserved with the
also noticed the aforesaid defect and rejected the second

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (iii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (iii)]
36 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
to have given opportunity to the election petitioner to record. As per the notice candidate was required to make orderdated 20.4.2009 rejecting his nomination paper on
available his proposers in the office of the Returning Officer thebasis ofwhich certified copy of order dated 20.4.2009 (b) Signature of proposer no . 10 Sri Manish Kumar
make available his Proposer No. 5 Tapeshwar Thakur for rejecting the nomination paper was given to the petitioner Sinha put at the time of filling ofthe nomination form ofthe
verification ofhis signature by 21.4.2009 as such privilege on 20-4-2009 between 11 A.M. - 3 P.M. In spite of notice petitioner was different from the signature which he put at
was allowed to another candidate Sri Hassan Faizi Azami . during scrutiny petitioner or his proposers did not make on 18.5.2009 , which is a serious lapse on the part of the the time of verification of his signature during scrutiny.
themselves available for verification of their signature, as Returning Officer but for such lapse the impugned election
such , their signature put in Part -2 of the nomination - form 39. The other submission of the learned counsel for ofrespondent no . 1 cannot be held to be void. It is further (c) Part number and serial number of the proposer
the election petitioner that verification of the signature of could not be verified by the Additional District Magistrate evident from the record that along with the attested certified no.7 of the election petitioner as mentioned in the
the proposers was made on the photostat copy of Part - 2 of (General) , Patna who was deputed for such purpose . From copy of the order dated 20.4.2009 which was given to the nomination form part - 2 was not available in the voter- list .
the nomination - form filed by the election petitioner is perusal of the nomination form of the election petitioner it petitioner on 18.5.2009 in response to his requisition dated
correct in viewof the report of R. W.2 dated 20.4.2009 kept appeared that part number and serial number of his 8-5-2009 petitioner was not furnished the copy of the (d) Part-3 'ka' of the nomination- form of the election
inthe record with reference to the nomination - form no . 56 Proposer No.7 is not available in the voter- list . It also corrigendum dated 20.4.2009 which is also indicative ofthe petitioner was not filled up as per the rule in view of
at page 29-30 and therefrom it appears that out of 10 appeared that election petitioner has not filled up Part -3 ill performance of the statutory duty by the Returning difference in the contents of the affidavit supporting Form
proposers of the petitioner 9 appeared for verification of 'ka ' of his nomination- form as per rule as there is variance Officer. 26, Annexure- I , which is prima facie evident from perusal
ofboth the documents .
their signature in connection with nomination form nos.56, in facts stated by him in Form 26 , Annexure -l which is 41. The last ground taken for rejecting the nomination
57. Prima facie the signature of Manish Kumar Sinha prima facie evident from perusal thereof. In the light ofthe paper of the petitioner that there is variance in the facts
proposer no . 10 of the petitioner differed from his previous aforesaid materials , evidence available on record , 38. In view of proviso to sub- section (5) of Section
signature put at the time of filling of the two nomination- Nomination Paper No. 56 of the election petitioner was stated in affidavit supporting Form 26 and Annexure - l is 36 of the Act, the Returning Officer, R. W. -1, in my opinion,
rejected. Having rejected Nomination Paper No. 56 under also misconceived in view of the provisions of Section 36 should have allowed the election petitioner time until
forme(s) . The Returning Officer having perused thereport of the Act and instructions issued by the Election 21.4.2009 for making available his proposer no.5
ofBijendra Jha, R. W. -2 that there was variance in the two orderdated 20.4.2009 Returning Officer issued corrigendum
signatures of Sri Manish Kumar Sinha put at the time of dated 20.4.2009 observing that there has been clerical Commission of India for conducting 2009 Parliamentary Sri Tapeshwar Thakur for verification ofhis signature over
mistake in the order dated 20.4.2009 rejecting the nomination Election vide paragraph 10.1 (viii ) of the Hand Book for the nomination- form as he had granted such opportunity
filling ofthe nomination- form and at the time of verification Returning Officer, in terms whereof the Returning Officer to another independent candidate Sri Hassan Faizi Azami
ofthe signature should have asked the election petitioner paper ofthe election petitioner and proceeded to substitute until 21.4.2009 9.15 A.M. but from Paragraph 26 ofhis cross-
to produce Sri Manish Kumar Sinha during scrutiny for thefollowing portion of the order dated 20.4.2009 :- should not reject any nomination paper for there being
incorrect statements in the two affidavits . Section 36 of the examination it appears that he denied the suggestion that
putting another signature so as to satisfy himself that it Act and the note below Paragraph 10.1 (viii ) of the he refused to grant time to the election petitioner to bring
was Manish Kumar Sinha who has proposed the election "During. scrutiny the candidate and his proposers hisproposer for verification of his signature by 21.4.2009 .
were not available for verification of their signature before instructions issued by the Election Commission of India
petitioner as Proposer No. 10 in the nomination- form. clearly require the Returning Officer not to reject any In the said paragraph R. W. I further volunteered that any
thedeputed Additional District Magistrate General , Patna candidate who asked for time was granted time to produce
and their signature could not be verified" by stating that 40. The submission that Returning Officer was nomination paper if the candidate has filed defective
biased against the election petitioner as he did not furnish during scrutiny petitioner made available 9 out of his 10 affidavit or has included false information in the two the proposer for verification of his signature until 2 1.4.2009 .
the copy of the order rejecting the nomination paper ofthe affidavit(s). In view of the provisions of the Act and the From paragraph 29 of the cross examination of R. W. 1 it ,
proposers . Proposer No.5 Sri Tapeshwar Thakur did not however, appears that during scrutiny of the nomination
election petitioner soon after the nomination paper of the appear for verification of his signature and the signature of direction of the Commission the last ground taken for
election petitioner was rejected on 20.4.2009 is required to Proposer No. 10 Sri Manish Kumar Sinha was found rejecting the nominatioin paper of the petitioner that there paper of the petitioner having seen the entries made against
be considered in view of Paragraph 28, 29 of the cross- different from the signature which was put by Sri Manish is variance in the contents of affidavit supporting Form 26 proposer no . 7 R. W. 1 pointed out to the election petitioner
exammation of the Returning Officer where he has stated Kumar Sinha at the time of filling of the nomination- form" and Annexure - 1 is misconceived and ought not to have that Constituency No. 190 is not within Patna Sahib
that no sooner order rejecting the nomination paper of the and to the aforesaid extent order dated 20-4-2009 rejecting persuaded the Returning Officer to reject the nomination Parliamentary Constituency but the election petitioner did
election petitioner was passed the same was directed to be the nomination paper of the election was modified. paper of the election petitioner on such ground . not accept the suggestion and maintained that the entries
given to the election petitioner but ifhe did not receive the made in the nomination paper against proposer no . 7 is
Nomination Paper No. 57 of the election petitioner was correct as he was more concerned about his proposer no.5 42.The further submission made on the basis of the
also rejected under order dated 20.4.2009 on the same and order soon after scrutiny, no such complain was made by
him to the Returning Officer as R. W. 1 was not aware of evidence of P.W. -3 , Sanjay Verma in Paragraph 5 of his Tapeshwar Thakur who was not available for verification
similar grounds as was noticed in the order dated 20.4.2009 ofhissignature on the date ofscrutiny i.e. 20.4.2009 as on examination in chief that on the date of scrutiny the
passed rejecting Nomination Paper No. 56 of the election any such complain . In Paragraph 29 of the cross- Returning Officer did not permit the petitioner and other
petitioner but without issue of any corrigendum examination R. W.- I further volunteered that at the time of that day he was away to Jamalpur in connection with
scrutiny ofnomination paper having seen the entries made marriage ofhis daughter. In view ofthe aforesaid evidence candidates to examine either their own nomination paper
substituting the clerical mistake noticed in the order dated ofR. W. 1 himself the case of the election petitioner that he or nomination paper of other candidates violating sub-
20.4.2009 rejecting Nomination Paper No. 56 ofthe election against his proposer no . 7 Returning Officer pointed out to section ( 5) of Section 36 of the Act as P.W. 3 and others
the election petitioner that Constituency No. 190 is not asked for timeuntil 21.4.2009 to make available Tapeshwar
petitioner although , such clerical mistake was very much were not allowed to look into the nomination paper of each
available in the order dated 20.4.2009 rejecting Nomination within Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency but the Thakur for verification of his signature but the Returning
election petitioner did not accept the suggestion and Officer refused to grant him opportunity to produce other, although they desired to look into the nomination
PaperNo. 57 ofthe election petitioner . From perusal ofthe Tapeshwar Thakur by the next day i.e. 21.4.2009 appears to paper of each other cannot be relied upon in view of the
two orders dated 20.4.2009 and one corrigendum dated maintained that the entries made in the nomination paper
against proposer no . 7 is correct as he was more concerned be more plausible and requires to be accepted in view of categoric denial by the Returning Officer , R.W. - l in
20.4.2009 rejecting Nomination Paper No. 56, 57 of the the evidence of R. W. 2 in paragraph 11 of his cross Paragraph 9 of his examination in chief that candidates
election petitioner, it is evident that nomination paper of about proposer no.5 Sri Tapeshwar Thakur who was not examination that after 20.4.2009 no further were given full opportunity and liberty to examine
the election petitioner has been rejected on the following available during scrutiny for. verification of his signature . nomination paper of other candidates and scrutiny of
four grounds:- Copy of the order rejecting the nomination - form no . 56, 57 opportunity as given to the election petitioner to bring his
one of the proposers who was not present at the time of nomination papers was performed in presence of Central
filed by the election petitioner along with' the corrigendum Observers deputed by the Election Commission of India as
should have been served on the petitioner after order ( a) For the failure of the election petitioner to make verification of signature on 20.4.2009 together with the fact
rejecting his nomination paper was passed or in any case that R.W. 1,2 have not disputed the fact that another well as candidates who were present on the date and time
available his Proposer No.5 Sri Tapeshwar Thakur for candidate Sri Hassan Faizi Aazmi was allowed such ofscrutiny and further statement made by him in Paragraph
verification of his signature during scrutiny. soon after publication of the list of the validly nominated 18 of his cross- examination that during scrutiny the
candidate on 21.4.2009 at 4.15 P.M. petitioner had to submit privilege to produce his proposer by 21.4.2009 until 9.15
A.M. In the circumstances , Returning officer was required candidates were asked to wait in the hall with liberty to
8441713-7 requisition dated 8.5.2009 for grant of certified copy ofthe

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( iii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934

enter the chamber of the Returning Officer as and when they desired, the candidate whose nomination paper was under scrutiny was asked to be present along with his proposers and further statement mage in paragraph 20 of the cross -examination that during scrutiny of the nomination paper the candidate was allowed to come with his proposer whose number was not restricted. In paragraph 21 of the cross - examination he has further stated that it is not correct to suggest that he did not allow even candidate to look into their own nomination paper at the time of scrutiny. Such suggestion is incorrect as Observers were there to check his action . He further stated that even without the presence of the Observers he would have allowed the candidate to remain present at the time of scrutiny and to see the nomination papers desired by them.

Ram were technical in nature and should have been rectified bythe Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny. High Court accepted the aforesaid submission and set aside the election ofthe returned candidate Brij Mohan on the ground that the nomination paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. Returned candidate filed appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court holding thatnomimltion paper of Dog Ram was properly rejected as there was defect in the serial , part numbers of the candidate and the proposer in the nomination paper, their names could not be traced in the concerned parts as registered electors .According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court . the Returning Officer, therefore , was helpless and asked the candidate Dog Ram to point out the names of self and hisproposer in the electoral roll , which Dog Ram failed to point out . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the sole respondent that while upholding the rejection of the nomination paper of Dog Ram the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Viveka Nand Giri (Supra) in paragraphs - 23 , 24 of the said judgment heavily relied upon by the election petitioner.

43. The submission of the learned counsel for the election petitioner that defect about part number and roll number of Proposer No.7 of the election petitioner as stated in the original nomination- form and the voter- list is not a substantial defect in view of proviso to sub - section (4) of Section 33 of the Act and should have been overlooked is misconceived in view of the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan V s . Sat Pal A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 847 paragraph 20, 22, 25 , Lila Krishna Vs. Maniram Godara and Ors .A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 1073 paragraph 15,16 , Bhogendra Jha Vs. Manoj Kumar Jha A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 2099 paragraph 6,7,10 .

45. In the case of Lila Krishan (supra) same point was involved as the serial number of the voter list of the proposer of the two candidates namely, Maniram Chapola and Raj Tilak did not tally with the serial number mentioned inthe electoral roll. The proposer of Maniram Chapola was one Brij Bhushan while the proposer of one Raj Tilak was one Upendra Kumar. Brij Bhushan and Upendra Kumar as indicated in the electoral roll was at serial no. 26 and 77 respectively. These numbers have been correctly indicated in form 3A but in the nomination paper the serial numbers have been shown as 126 and 177 respectively . The discrepancy has arisen on account of appearance of the figure ' 1 ' before the correct number. When scrutiny was taken upManiram Chapola and Raj Tilak were not present before the Returning Officer. Similarly proposers Brij Bhushan and Upendra Kumar were also absent . The High Court took the view that it was the obligation of the Returning Officer to verify the electoral roll and to find out the serial number , the mistake if any was not of substantial character so as to expose the nomination paper to rejection and the rejection on such a ground was improper and set aside the election of the returned candidate . Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, reversed the judgment holding that to cast obligation on the Returning Officer to look through the entire electoral roll of a particular part with a view to find out the identity of the proposer is not the requirement of law to read such obligation on the part of Returning Officer is likely to lead to an unworkable position. In one part of the electoral roll on the average names of about a thousand voters appeared. Out of thousand names it isquite possible that there would be more than one voter by the same name . Identification of any particular voter 44. In the case of Brij Mohan (supra) Supreme Court considered the case of Sat Pal an elector of the Jind Assembly Constituency who filed election petition stating that Dog Ram was registered as an elector at serial no.177 in part 39 of the electoral roll of Jind Constituency. Ram Pratap who proposed Dog Ram as candidate was registered as elector at serial number 313 in part 39 of the same constituency. In the nomination paper name and address of Dog Ram was correctly mentioned but there was mistake in part number as for 39 , 57 was mentioned due to inadvertence committed by the person who filled up nomination paper. Similarly in the case of proposer Ram Pratap the serial number of the elector and the number of constituency were given correctly but the number of his house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the part number of the electoral roll . These mistakes in the nomination paper were technical in natre and should have been corrected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny. No other candidate or proposer objected to the acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer on his own rejected the nomination paper stating that particulars of the candidate and the proposer have been wrongly entered in the nomination paper and the candidate who was present at the time of scrutiny failed to produce the voter list showing particulars as entered in the nomination paper under consideration . Election ofthe returned candidate Brij Mohan was challenged by an elector on the ground that defects in the nomination paper of Dog [PART II-SEC. 3 (iii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934

173 and Part No. 178 of the voter - list has not been stated in the election petition. It may be stated here that Returning Officer, Respondent No.1 has categorically stated in paragraph - 29 of his cross - examination that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper having seen the entries made against Proposer Serial No. 7 he pointed out to the election petitioner that Constituency No. 190 is not within Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency but the election petitioner did not accept the suggestion and maintained that the entries made in the nomination paper against Proposer Serial No.7 is correct.

out of such list even when there are more voters with the same name is possible only with further reference to the father's name . To cast obligation of verifying the entire electoral roll of a particular part is actually requiring the Returning Officer to do almost an impossible feet . No one was available when the nomination paper of Maniram Chapola and Raj Tilak was taken up for scrutiny to indicate that the serial number of their proposer Brij Bhushan and Upendra Kumar was 26 and 77 and not 126 and 177 , as is appearing in the nomination paper and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the import of the provisions of Sub- Section-( 4) of Section 33 and Sub-section- ( 1 ) to (4 ) of Section 36 of the Act reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the nomination paper of Maniram Chapola and Raj Tilak was rightly rejected as incorrect serial number of their proposer was indicated in the nomination paper, which was not even corrected at the time of the scrutiny as none was available to correct the defect .

48. Reliance placed by the election petitioner over the observations made in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandisha Reddy Vs. Kavitha Mahesh 2011 ( 7 ) SCC 721 paragraph 13 is also misconceived . It appears in the said case the election petition was filed on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper under Section 100 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Act . The Returned Candidate filed petitions under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the election petitiondoes not contain material facts and another petition under Section 83 , 86 of the Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the election petition. Both the aforesaid petitions were dismissed by the High Court which was challenged before the Supreme Court . Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper shall be considered during trial of the election petition .

46. In the case of Bhogendra Jha ( supra) part number ofone of the proposers was wrongly mentioned in the nomination paper which was not corrected by the candidate 'or his proposer at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper and the Returning Officer had no option but to reject the nomination paper of Manoj KumarJha . Patna High Court set aside the election of the returned candidate Bhogendra Jha at the instance ofManoj Kumar Jha . Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, reversed the judgment of the Patna High Court holding that nomination paper of Manoj Kumar Jha was properly rejected as it was not the duty of the Returning Officer to make a roving and fishing enquiryto find out the serial, part number of the proposer which was the duty ofthe candidate /proposer to furnish correct serial , part number in the nomination paper.

49. Notwithstanding my observations and findings in paragraphs 38 to 41 above , neither the order dated 20-4-2009 rejecting the nomination form of the election petitioner can be set aside nor the impugned election of respondent no . 1 can be declared void in view of my finding in paragraphs 43 to 47 above that petitioner refused to correct the part , serial number of his proposer no . 7, P.W. 6 mentioned in the nomination paper , part 2 of the petitioner, which is admitted in paragraph 23 of the election petition , paragraph 14 ofthe cross examination ofelection petitioner , P.W. 5 and paragraph 3 of the examination in chief of proposer no.7 , P. W. 6 duly corroborated by the Returning Officer, R. W. 1 in paragraph 29 of his cross examination .

50. In the result, the election petition is dismissed.

Patna High Court , Patna

Dated the 6th day of November,

Sd./-

2012

(V. N. SINHA, J)

[No. 82/BR- HP/ (7/2009 )/2012 ]

ByOrder,

HARBANS SINGH , Secy.

47. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan , Lila Krishan , Bhogendra Jha (supra ) any defect in the part , serial number of the proposer and the candidate mentioned in Part 2 of the nomination - form is a substantial defect and could not have been ignored/overlooked by the Returning Officer during scrutiny in the light of the provisions of proviso to Sub- section (4) of Section 33 of the Act and reliance placed by the learned counsel for the election petitioner over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh Pal Vs. Madan Lal ( Supra) and Viveka Nand Giri ( supra) appears to be misconceived in view of the statement made by the election petitioner in paragraph 23 of the election petition that part number and roll number of Proposer No.7 as stated in Part 2 of his nomination paper did not tally with the voter- list and the evidence of Proposer No.7 i.e. P. W. 6 that in Part 2 of the nomination paper filed by the election petitioner his name is at serial no . 7 and against his name Constituency No. 190, Part No. 104 and serial no . 5211 has been mentioned , which is on the basis of the voter- slip given to him for the last Assembly Election held in the month of November , 2005 and his present Serial No.

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