3129 GI/2018

(77)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 15]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 10—twu 16] 2018] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 20—T;s"B 26] 1940

No. 15]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 10—JUNE 16, 2018, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 20—JYAISTHA 26, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (iii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii)

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

Orders and Notifications issued by the Central Authorities (Other than the Administrations of Union Territories)

भारत िनवा चन आयोग

आदेश

नई द ली, 7 जून, 2018

आ.अ.

आ.अ. 31.—;r% fuokZpu vk;ksx dk lek/kku gks x;k gS fd uhps dh lkj.kh ds LrEHk ¼2½ esa ;Fkk fofufnZ"V

>kj[kaM jkT; ls fo/kku lHkk ds lk/kkj.k fuokZpu] 2014 ds fy, tks LrEHk ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V fuokZpu {ks= ls gqvk gS LrEHk ¼4½

esa mlds lkeus fofufnZ"V fuokZpu yM+us okyk izR;sd vH;FkhZ] yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 rFkk rn~/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa

}kjk visf{kr mDr lkj.kh ds LrEHk ¼5½ esa ;Fkknf’kZr vius fuokZpu O;;ksa dk dksbZ Hkh ys[kk nkf[ky djus vFkok jhfr ds

vuqlkj ys[kk nkf[ky djus esa vlQy jgk gS(

vkSj] ;r% mDr vH;fFkZ;ksa us] lE;d~ lwpuk fn, tkus ij Hkh mDr vlQyrk ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k vFkok Li"Vhdj.k

ugha fn;k gS ;k muds }kjk fn;s x;s vH;kosnuksa ij] ;fn dksbZ gks] fopkj djus ds Ik’pkr~ fuokZpu vk;ksx dk ;g lek/kku gks

x;k gS fd muds ikl mDr vlQyrk ds fy, dksbZ Ik;kZIr dkj.k ;k U;k;kSfpR; ugha gSA

vr% vc] fuokZpu vk;ksx mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10&d ds vuqlj.k esa uhps dh lkj.kh ds LrEHk ¼4½ esa fofufnZ"V

O;fDr;ksa dks laln ds fdlh Hkh lnu ds ;k fdlh jkT;@la?k jkT; dh fo?kku lHkk vFkok fo/kku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; pqus tkus

vkSj lnL; gksus ds fy, bl vkns’k dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh dkykof/k ds fy, fujfgZr ?kksf"kr djrk gS %&

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2018/JYAISTHA 26, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

सारणी

Øe

la0

fuoZkpu dk fooj.k fo/kku lHkk fuokZpu

{ks= dh la[;k o uke

vH;FkhZ dk uke o irk

fugZjrk dk dkj.k

>kj[kaM fo/kku lHkk

dk lk/kkj.k fuokZpu]

2014

6& egs'kiqj

¼v-t-tk-½

Jh dkfynkl VqMw

xzke& xksfoUniqj] iks0& lkxcsfj;k]

Fkkuk& ikdqfM+;k] ftyk& ikdqM+] >kj[k.MA

fuokZpu O;;ksa dk dksbZ

Hkh ys[kk nkf[ky djus esa

vlQy jgsA

&ogh&

Jh nkmn ejkaMh

xzke& ify;knkgk ¼lksxys Vksyk½]

iks0& ify;knkgk] Fkkuk& ikdqfM+;k]

ftyk& ikdqM+] ¼>kj[k.M½]fiu ua0& 816117

&ogh&

20&cjdV~Bk

Jh egknso jke

xzke& dk¡dks] iks0& dk¡dks] Fkkuk& t;uxj] ftyk&

dksMjek] jkT;&>kj[k.M] fiu& 825410

&ogh&

Jh vy[knso flag

xzke$iks0& pydq'kk] Fkkuk& cjdV~Bk]

ftyk& gtkjhckx] jkT;&>kj[k.M]

&ogh&

24&ek.Mw

edlqn vkye

xzke&pjuf[k;k] iks0& uoknk]

Fkkuk& fo".kqx<+] ftyk& gtkjhckx] >kj[k.MA

&ogh&

25& gtkjhckx

bj'kkn fcu jgeku

isykoy] gtkjhckx] >kj[k.MA

&ogh&

Mk0 vfouk'k dqekj

gkml fu;j vksYM psd iksLV]

fu;j gqjgq: VSad& jkaph iVuk

jksM& gtkjhckx] >kj[k.MA

&ogh&

Jh }kfjdk dqekj nkl

xzke& uoknk] iks0& cUgk] Fkkuk& dVdelk.Mh]

ftyk& gtkjhckx] ¼>kj[k.M½] 825302

&ogh&

Jh nhid dqekj

edku la[;k& 125 ckckiFk]

gqjgq: iksLV& gtkjhckx] Fkkuk& lnj]

ftyk& gtkjhckx] ¼>kj[k.M½] fiu& 825301

&ogh&

[la0 76@>kj-&fo-l-@2014]

आदेश से,

ds- ,u- Hkkj] iz/kku lfpo

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2018

O.N. 31.—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates specified in

column (4) of the Table below at the General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2014 from the State of Jharkhand as

specified in column (2) held from the constituency specified in column(3) against his/her name, has failed to lodge any

account of his/her election expenses at all or in the manner as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951,

and the rules made thereunder as shown in column(5) of the said Table;

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

after due notice of the Election Commission, or after considering the representation if any, made by them, 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 the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State/Union Territory for a

period of three years from the date of this order:-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 16] 2018@T;s"B 26] 1940

TABLE

S.No.

Particulars of

Election

Number & Name of

the Assembly

Constituency

Name & Address of the Candidate

Reason of

disqualification

General Election to

the Legislative

Assembly 2014 from

the State of

Jharkhand

6- Maheshpur (ST)

Shri Kalidas Tudu

Vill- Govindpur,

P.O- Sagberiya, P.S- Pakuria,

Dist- Pakur, Jharkhand.

Failure to lodge

any account of

Election expenses

-do-

Shri Daud Marandi

Vill- Paliadaha (Sogletola),

P.O- Paliadaha, P.S- Pakuria,

Dist- Pakur, (Jharkhand),

Pin- 816117,

-do-

20-Barkatha

Shri Mahadeo Ram

Vill- Kanko, Post- Kanko,

Thana- Jainagar, Dist- Koderma,

State-Jharkhand, Pin- 825410,

-do-

Shri Alakhdeo Singh

Vill+Post- Chalkusha,

Thana- Barkatha, Dist- Hazaribagh,

State-Jharkhand,

-do-

24- Mandu

Maksud Alam

Vill- Charnakhiya, Post- Nawada,

P.S- Bishnugarh,

District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand.

-do-

25- Hazaribag

Irshad Bin Rahman

Pelawal, Hazaribag, Jharkhand.

-do-

Dr. Avinash Kumar

House near old check- post,

Near hurhuru tank,

Ranchi- Patna

Road- Hazaribag, Jharkhand.

-do-

Shri Dwarika Kumar Das

Village- Nawada, Post- Banha,

P.S- Katkamsandi,

Dist- Hazaribag, Jharkhand,

Pin- 825302.

-do-

-do

Shri Deepak Kumar

House No. 125, Baba Path Hurhuru,

P.O- Hazaribag,

P.S- Sadar, Dist- Hazaribag,

Jharkhand, Pin- 825301.

-do-

[No. 76/JKD-LA/2014]

By Order,

K. N. BHAR, Principal Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2018/JYAISTHA 26, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

आदेश

नई द ली, 7 जून, 2018

आ.अ.

आ.अ. 32

32.—जबक, भारत िनवाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है क नीचे क सारणी के !त"भ (2) म& यथा िविन(द) उ+र

,देश रा.य क िवधान सभा के साधारण िनवाचन, 2017 के िलए, जो !त"भ (3) म& िविन(द) िनवाचन 4े5 से 6आ है, !त"भ (4) म&

उसके सामने िविन(द) िनवाचन लड़ने वाला ,9येक अ;यथ<, लोक ,ितिनिध9व अिधिनयम, 1951 तथा त?ीन बनाए गए िनयम@ Aारा

अपेि4त उC सारणी के !त"भ (5) म& यथा दDशत अपने िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल करने म& असफल रहे हH; और

जबक, उC अ;यDथय@ ने स"यक् सूचना दए जाने पर भी उC असफलता के िलए या तो कोई कारण अथवा !प)ीकरण नहK

दया है या उनके Aारा दए गए अ;यावेदन@ पर, यद कोई हो, िवचार करने के पLात् िनवाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है क

उनके पास उC असफलता के िलए कोई पयाM कारण या Nयायौिच9य नहK है;

अत: अब, िनवाचन आयोग एतPारा उC अिधिनयम क धारा 10-क के अनुसरण म& नीचे क सारणी के !त"भ (4) म& िविन(द)

EिCय@ को संसद के कसी भी सदन के या कसी रा.य/संघ रा.य 4े5 क िवधान सभा अथवा िवधान पUरषद् के सद!य चुने जाने और

सद!य होने के िलए इस आदेश क तारीख से तीन वष क कालाविध के िलए िनरDहत घोिषत करता है ।

सारणी

Yम सं.

िनवाचन 4े5 का िववरण

िनवाचन 4े5 क Yम

संZया एवं नाम

िनवाचन लड़ने वाले अ;यथ< का

नाम व पता

िनरहता का कारण

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

196-िछबरामऊ

उमेश चN[,

\ाम भोजपुर (ितलकापुर),

पो!ट ताल\ाम,

जनपद क^ौज, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

198-क^ौज (अ0जा0)

मुकेश कुमार जाटव,

\ा0 तारमऊ गढ़ी,

पो0 िम5सेनपुर, तह0 व िज0

क^ौज, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

198-क^ौज (अ0जा0)

बीरेN[,

नगला पीतम भोलेपुर,

पो0 फतेहगढ़,

िज0 फbखाबाद, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

198-क^ौज (अ0जा0)

cीकाNत dसंह,

\ा0 रजपालपुर,

पो0 लखनपुर,

िज0 फbखाबाद, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

253-चायल

िवजय कुमार रामदास रिवदास,

नूरपुर हाजीपुर चायल,

कौशा"बी, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

303-किपलव!तु

(अ0जा0)

dपंगल ,साद,

\ाम-Uटकरी,

पो!ट-जोिगया उदयपुर,

जनपद-िस?ाथनगर,

उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा िविध

Aारा अपेि4त रीित से दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

316-नौतनवा

सतीश कुमार चतुवeदी,

सरोजनी नगर,

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 16] 2018@T;s"B 26] 1940

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

न0पा0प0 नौतनवां,

महराजगंज, उ+र ,देश ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

343-अतरौिलया

लौटन,

\ाम-काजीपfी मेिहयापार,

पो!ट-अहरौला, िजला-

आजमगढ़, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

346-मुबारकपुर

तेजबहादुर dसंह,

\ाम व पो!ट-बीबीपुर,

जनपद-आजमगढ़,

उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

10.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

348-िनज़ामाबाद

हUरदास,

श"भूपुर,

तह0 बूढ़नुपर,

उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

11.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

365-शाहगंज

अनुराग पाgडेय,

\ाम व पो!ट-गैरवाह,

िजला-जौनपुर,

उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

12.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

365-शाहगंज

सोनू खान,

\ाम व पो!ट- सारी

जहांगीरपfी,

िजला-जौनपुर, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

13.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

365-शाहगंज

लाल बहादुर वमा,

\ाम-पुरास"भल शाह,

पो!ट- दुखई पुरा,

िजला-जौनपुर, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

14.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

368-मुंगरा बादशाहपुर िनलेश रdवं[नाथ,

\ाम-बसहरा,

पो!ट-सोतीपुर, जौनपुर,

उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

15.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

369-मछलीशहर

(अ0जा0)

मूल चN[,

\ाम-सरायभाव dसंह,

पो!ट-इकौनी,

िजला-भदोही,

उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

16.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

369-मछलीशहर

(अ0जा0)

लiमी सरोज,

\ाम व पो!ट कुंवरपुर,

तहसील-मछलीशहर,

िजला-जौनपुर, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

17.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

380-मुगलसराय

jेता पाgडेय,

म0नं0 529 भगवानपुर लंका,

पो!ट भगवानपुर,

वाराणसी, उ+र ,देश ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2018/JYAISTHA 26, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

18.

उ+र

,देश

रा.य

से

िवधान सभा के िलए

सामाNय िनवाचन, 2017

389-वाराणसी दि4ण

कशन सेठ,

सी.के. 17/15.बी, मोती कटरा

ठठेरी बाजार, थाना चौक,

वाराणसी (उ0,0) ।

िनवाचन Eय@ का लेखा दािखल

करने म& असफल रहे ।

[सं0 76/उ0,0-िव0स0/2017]

आदेश से,

ए. एन. दास, सिचव

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2018

O.N. 32.—Whereas, the Election Commission of India is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates

specified in column (4) of the table below at the General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2017 from the State of

Uttar Pradesh as specified in column (2) 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 notices of 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 the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State/ Union Territory for a

period of three years from the date of this order: -

TABLE

Sl. No.

Particular of Election

Sl.No. & Name

of Constituency

Name & Address of

Contesting Candidates

Reason of Disqualification

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

196-Chhibramau

Umesh Chandra,

Village Bhojapur (Tilkapur),

Post Talgram,

Distt. Kannauj,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

198-Kannauj (SC)

Mukesh Kumar Jatav,

Vill.-Tarmau Garhi,

PO.-Mitrasenpur,

Teh. & Distt.-Kannauj,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

198-Kannauj (SC)

Birendra,

Nagla Pitam Bholepur,

PO.-Fatehgarh,

Distt.-Farrukhabad,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

198-Kannauj (SC)

Shrikant Singh,

Vill. Rajpalpur,

PO.-Lakhanpur,

Distt.-Farrukhabad,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

253-Chail

Vijay Kumar Ramdas

Ravidas,

Noorpur Hajipur Chail,

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 16] 2018@T;s"B 26] 1940

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

Kaushambi,

Uttar Pradesh.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

303-Kapilvastu (SC)

Pingal Prasad,

Vill-Tikari,

Post-Jogiya Udaypur,

Distt-Siddharthnagar,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge the account

his/her

election

expenses in the manner

required by law.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

316-Nautanwa

Satish Kumar Chaturvedi,

Sarojani Nagar,

N.PA.P. Nautanwa,

Maharajganj,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

343-Atrauliya

Lautan,

Vill-Kajipatti Mehiyapar,

Post-Ahiraula,

District-Azamgarh,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

346-Mubarakpur

Tejbahadur Singh,

Vill & Post – Bibipur,

Distt. – Azamgarh,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

10.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

348-Nizamabad

Haridas,

Shambhupur ,

Budhanpur,

Azamgarh,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

11.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

365-Shahganj

Anurag Pandey,

Vill.& Post-Gairwah,

Distt. Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

12.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

365-Shahganj

Sonu Khan,

Vill & Post. Sari

Jahangirpatti,

Distt. Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

13.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

365-Shahganj

Lal Bahadur Verma,

Vill. Purasambhal Shah,

Post. Dukhai Pura,

Distt. Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

14.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

368-Mungra

Badshahpur

Nilesh Ravindranath,

Vill-Basahara,

Post-Sotipur,

Distt-Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

15.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

369-Machhlishahr

(SC)

Mool Chandra,

Vill. Saray Bhauv Singh,

Post-Ikauni,

Distt-Bhadohi,

Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

16.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of Uttar

369-Machhlishahr

(SC)

Lakshmi Saroj,

Village & Post –

Kunwarpur, Tehsil-

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2018/JYAISTHA 26, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

Pradesh, 2017.

Machhlishahr,

Distt-Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh.

17.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

380-Mughalsarai

Shweta Pandey,

H.No. 529, Bhagwanpur

Lanka,

Post Bhagwanpur,

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

18.

General Election to the

Legislative

Assembly

of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, 2017.

389-Varanasi South

Kishan Seth,

CK-17/15B, Moti Katra,

Thatheri Bazar,

PS Chowk,

Varanasi (U.P.).

Failed to lodge account of

his/her election expenses.

[No. 76/UP-LA/2017]

By Order,

A. N. DAS, Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2018

vkvkvkvk-v- 33333333-&yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼1951 dk 43½ dh /kkjk 106 ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa fuokZpu vk;ksx ,rn~}kjk

fuokZpu vthZ la- 15@2014 esas fn, x, mPp U;k;ky;] NÙkhlx<+] fcykliqj ds rkjh[k 20 viSzy] 2018 ds vkns’k dks izdkf’kr djrk

gS A

¼vkns’k vf/klwpuk ds vaxzsth Hkkx esa Nik gS A½

[la- 82@N-x-&yks-l-@¼15@2014½@2018]

vkns’k ls]

ujsUnz uk- cqVksfy;k] iz/kku lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2018

O.N. 33.—In pursuance of Section 106 (a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election

Commission hereby publishes Order dated 20^th April, 2018 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Election

Petition No. 15 of 2014.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

EP No. 15 of 2014

Shambhu Prasad Sharma S/o Late Bansh Gopal Sharma Aged

About 70 Years R/o Village And Post- Seoni, Tah. Marwahi,

Civil & Revenue Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh

…Petitioner

Versus

Dr.Banshilal Mahto S/o Late Dhaniram Mahto Aged About 73 Years R/o House

No. 31, Ward No. 7, Champa Road, Main Road, Korba, Civil & Revenue Distt.

Korba Chhattisgarh

Charan Das Mahant S/o Bisahu Das Mahant Aged About 59 Years R/o House

No. 623, Mahant Para, Post- Saragaon, Tah. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa

Chhattisgarh

Heera Singh Markam S/o Late Dev Sai Markam Aged About 79 Years R/o Village

& Post- Tiwrata, Tah. Pali, Civil & Revenue Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 16] 2018@T;s"B 26] 1940

Jeevan Lal Rautel S/o Bisauha Ram Rautel Aged About 48 Years R/o House No.

224, Kolanpara, Village- Dhanauli, PostKorja, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

Amar Nath Pandey S/o Late Brajraj Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o H.I.G. 128,

M.P. Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh

Dhan Singh Dhurve S/o Sri Rangaee Dhurve Aged About 43 Years R/o Navgaee,

Post- Raghunath Nagar, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Surguja Division, Distt. Balrampur

C.G., Pin497225, Chhattisgarh

Pratap Bhanu S/o Gulab Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village & Post-

Semardarri, Tah. & Post- Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

Charan Bhaiyya S/o Ramcharan Aged About 45 Years R/o Girari, Post-

Nawagaon, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

Jata Shankar Pandey S/o Jagdamba Aged About 38 Years R/o Salwa, Post- Ghutra,

P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Kkoria C.G., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),

Chhattisgarh

10.

S.R. Anchal S/o Late Mungeliha Das Aged About 44 Years R/o Dr. Ambedkar

Chowk, House No. 632, Ward No. 39, Ayodhyapuri, Post- Ntpc Jamnipali, P.S.

Darri, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh

11.

Chandra Bhuhan Pratap Singh Kanwar S/o MOOI Chand Kanwar Aged About 36

Years R/o Jambahar, Post- Balco Nagar, Civil & Revenue Distt. Korba,

Chhattisgarh

12.

Laxman Lal Kaiwarty S/o Birbal Aged About 44 Years R/o Purani Basti,

Darri,Post- Jamnipali, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh

13.

Phuleshwar Prasad Surjaeeha S/o Shambhunath Surjaeeha Aged About 71 Years

R/o Dhinouchi, Post- Siwni, Tah. Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

14.

Rajesh Kumar Pandey S/o Bharat Kumar Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Old

Kashinagar Khapra Bhattha, Budhwari Bazar, Korba, House No. 1106, Ward No.

16, Korba, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh

15.

Dr. Urmila Singh Marko D/o Rai Singh Marko Aged About 49 Years R/o Behind

Secl Colony, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

16.

Harbhajan Singh Shyam S/o Sumer Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o House

No. I-/101 Chief House Bartunga, PostChirmiri, Tah. Khadgawan, Pin- 497449,

District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

17.

Rajendra Singh Kanwar S/o Late Jai Singh Kanwar Aged About 32 Years R/o

House No. 563/1/3 Padhimar Balco Nagar, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh

18.

Mohan Lal Bargahi S/o Ramadhin Bargahi Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No.

09, South Jhagrakhand, Tah. Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),

Chhattisgarh

19.

Fatte Singh Shyam S/o Jarman Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Dhinouchi, Post-

Siwni, Tah. Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

20.

Kewal Goswami S/o Bishnu Bharti Aged About 44 Years R/o Kurma, Post- Dogri,

Tah. Balauda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

21.

Sheikh Faoof S/o Sheikh Chand Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Haldibadi,

Chirmiri, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

22.

Rajesh Kumar Mahant S/o Daroga Das Mahant Aged About 37 Years R/o House

No. 63, Belakachhar, Village- Panchayat Condro, Post Balco Nagar, Tah. & Distt.

Korba, Chhattisgarh

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2018/JYAISTHA 26, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

23.

Kamaldev S/o Ram Pratap Bangali Aged About 35 Years Dafaee, Heeragir Dafaee,

Haldibadi, Post- Haldibadi, P.S. Chirmiri, Tah. Khadgavan, Pin- 497451, District :

Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

…Respondents

For the Petitioner

In person

For Respondent No. 1

Mr. R. S. Marhas, Advocate

For Respondent No. 2

Mr. V. C. Ottalwar, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

CAV Judgment/Order

Reserved on 21.02.2018

Pronounced on 20.04.2018)

The present election petition touches upon the Parliamentary election held in the year 2014 for Korba

constituency No.4 Korba wherein respondent No. 1 Banshilal Mahto was declared elected as returned candidate. In such

election respondent No. 1 who contested on behalf of Bhartiya Janta party had secured 439002 number of votes and the

petitioner who contested as an independent candidate has secured 1808 number of votes and the other respondents

secured different number of votes.

(i)

The challenge to the election of respondent No.l is on the ground that respondent no. 1 the returned

candidate has not followed the mandatory direction/instructions issued by the Chief Election

Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and the affidavit in the required format was not submitted in the office of

returning officer by all the respondents including the returned candidate (R-1). It is further case of the

petitioner that the information was required to be submitted u/s 8 of the Representation of the People Act

1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1951") by all the candidates who participated in the election

but the respondents failed to file such papers before the election commission and therefore, the

nomination of the election itself was void ab-initio. It is further case of the petitioner that the contesting

candidates of the Parliamentary election had to file nomination forms by 05.04.2014, which was the date

prescribed for filing nominations in the office of Election Commissioner, Korba along-with affidavit. It

was stated that the scrutiny of nominations was fixed for 07.4.2014 and the election was held on

24.4.2014. The counting of ballot papers was done on 16.05.2014 and the result was also declared on the

same date.

(ii)

It was pleaded that the petitioner filed nomination form

along-with affidavit in prescribed proforma as per

the direction of the Commission, but respondent no. 1 and other contesting respondents have not

submitted the affidavits as required u/s 8 of the Representation of People's Act 1951. The further case of

the petitioner is on the ground that the direction of the Commission was required to be followed as a

statutory mandate, however, the petitioner noticed that none of the respondents have submitted the

affidavit and the information as required u/s 8 of the Act of 1951. Therefore, when the petitioner after

noticing the deficiency in nomination papers of the other contenting candidates filed his objection before

the returning officer, Korba and filed his affidavit, the same was ignored and the returning officer

dismissed the objection by holding that the affidavit so enclosed by the returned candidate was in proper

format. It is the case of the petitioner that the returned candidate primarily respondent No. 1 had filed the

wrong nomination paper which was accepted by the returning officer and the same ought to have been

dismissed in the initial stage when the objection was raised. Therefore, the election of returned candidate

on such ground may be declared void.

The pleading of the election petition would show that the averments are being made against other respondents

also who contested the election. However, during the course of trial, the petitioner did not much press upon such

averments except the averments made against respondent No. 1 who is returned candidate, therefore, primarily while

adjudicating the election petition, the court is concerned only with the nature of pleading and proof which is brought on

record by the petitioner against respondent No.l whose election is sought to be set aside. The further allegation of the

petitioner is that in the earlier election of 2009 the petitioner secured 23136 votes, however, in subsequent election it was

reduced to 1808 for the reason that he was not provided any security and the transparency in the election process was

absent, therefore, the election is also liable to be cancelled.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 16] 2018@T;s"B 26] 1940

In the return, respondent No.l denied all the allegations and nothing was admitted. It is contended in reply that

as per sub-section (3) of section 81 of the Representation of People's Act 1951, since the election petition was not

accompanied by as many copies thereof as per the number of respondents mentioned in the petition and copies are not

attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition, therefore, the petition is defectively

filed.

It was further pleaded that the objection filed by the petitioner before the returning officer was rightly rejected

as Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 prescribed for disqualification of a candidate only on Conviction

of candidates for certain offences and the objection did not contain any allegation of election petitioner that the

respondent was convicted. It was further stated that the affidavit along-with nomination papers was properly sworn by

the respondent and the scrutiny of proposal was also not disputed as the oath and affirmation was taken by the

respondent in accordance with law. All the adverse allegations made in the petition were also denied.

On the basis of pleadings and averments made in the petition, the court has framed the following issues:

S.N0.

Issues

Findings

01.

Whether copy of the election petition served to respondent No. 1 is attested by

the petitioner under his own signature and whether the petition has been

signed and verified by the election petitioner ? If not, the effect ?

Not Proved

02.

Whether the respondents have not submitted the affidavit and information

under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 before the

Returning Officer ? If not, the effect ?

Not Proved

03.

Whether the order Annexure P-2 rejecting objection filed by the election

petitioner is wrong, illegal and void ?"

04.

Whether the returning officer acted illegally in not rejecting the nomination

papers of the respondents ?

05.

Whether the election is liable to be quashed and whether the election

petitioner is entitled to be declared as returned candidate ?"

The petitioner examined himself before the Court and except this examination, no other evidence was adduced.

On behalf respondent, returned candidate Dr.Bansilal Mahto was examined and Lakhanlal Dewangan was also examined

on his behalf as D.W.2.

Issues 2, 3, & 4 are interlinked with each other as they are arising out of common facts and evidence as such

these issues are being decided together. On behalf of the petitioner written submissions have been filed and he did not

appear on different dates so fixed for arguments. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits

that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove his case as such no case is made out in the election petition so

as to declare the election of respondent No. 1 as void and except this, no submission has been made.

In order to find out the fact whether the election petitioner was able to prove his case beyond the reasonable

doubt, the pleadings and evidence were examined. In the statement of the petitioner Shambhu Prasad Sharma, he has

stated that on 07.04.2014 when the scrutiny was fixed before the returning officer, Korba, he had filed an objection that

except the petitioner, no other candidate has filed the nomination forms according to the proforma set out by the election

commission. It is stated that since the nomination papers should be filed according to the direction of the Election

Commission, the entire candidatures of the nomination papers of other candidates should have been rejected. There is no

admission of any document by the respondent. The petitioner has not exhibited or proved any document except the oral

evidence. The petitioner has not called for any witness to prove the fact which nomination papers were filed by the

returned candidate. If the petitioner was serious about the same to prove such facts, he could have called for the evidence

of the returning officer to prove the document. Along-with with the petition, bunch of photocopies of the documents

have been placed, but the documents have not been exhibited and proved in evidence by calling the originals. The

returned candidate in his reply has not admitted those documents and instead he has stated that they have filed the

affidavit as per the requirement of law. Therefore, if the petitioner was certain of the fact that the nomination papers

were not supported by duly sworn affidavit then in order to prove the same, the documents should have been called and

proved before the Court when the documentary evidence exists. Only on mere say of the petitioner that the affidavit was

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 16, 2018/JYAISTHA 26, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

not executed as per the direction and legally acceptable procedure, it cannot be taken to be a gospel truth for want of any

evidence to accept the averments of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has failed to prove the nature of the documents

which were filed by respondent No. 1 along-with affidavit when the nomination papers were filed.

10.

As against the statement of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 who has examined himself has deposed that when

he wants to file the nomination paper before the returning officer, Korba, he filled it before him and at the same time all

the requisite documents were filed. He has stated that alongwith documents, he has also filed the property papers. He has

further stated that he had filled all the necessary forms and fulfilled the formalities and thereafter, the returning officer

scrutinized the nomination form wherein no defect was found and having found that no defect exists, allowed him to

contest the election. The respondent has further stated that it is wrong to assert that he has not filled the document as per

the proforma of 6-1-98. He has further stated that his proposer Lakhan Lal Dewangan has also

signed the nomination

papers and admitted the fact that instead of full signature of Lakhan Lal Dewangan, he has signed as Lakhan Lal. It is

further stated that the said proposer Lakhan Lal Dewangan is M.L.A., of Katghora constituency and he was elected prior

to the election of the witness i.e., respondent No. 1.

11.

In the cross examination of the petitioner, when he was subsequently asked as to why the copy of document i.e.,

format of 6.1.1998 has not been attached to the petition, it was replied by him that he had filed his objection before the

returning officer and has stated about the objection in it. Further when it was confronted that the returning officer has

dismissed his plea holding that all the documents were in proper format, no reply was given instead it was stated that the

returning officer was shown the format. Therefore, what is the format, where it exists was upon the petitioner to prove.

Neither any such documents were summoned through proper authority nor any iota of evidence is on record to hold the

form of affidavit sworn by the respondent was bad.

12.

In the evidence of returned candidate, respondent No. 1, he stated that in his nomination form of election, the

proposer Lakhan Lal Dewangan has signed the proposal form wherein he has made his signature as Lakhan Lal. The

witness D.W. 2 Lakhan Lal Dewangan affirming the fact has stated that in the year 2014 he has signed as proposer of the

nomination form of the returned candidate Bansilal Mahto and he has signed as Lakhan Lal in such paper.

13.

The over all scrutiny of file would show that no documentary evidence is placed and exhibited by the petitioner

in this case. The entire case is contested only on the presumption and oral evidence. The nature of pleadings and evidence

would show that the petitioner has failed to appreciate that when he has come to the Court by filing election petition, it

was his duty to satisfy the Court and discharge the burden of proof to substantiate the averments of the petition. Neither

the copy of Annexure P-2 which was filed along-with the petition has been proved by the original nor the certified copy

was called to prove the fact. Simply by placing a document, presumption cannot be drawn that it was the order dated

07.04.2014 passed by the returning officer whereby the objection of the petitioner was dismissed. What is the authority of

the order and evidentiary value of it still remains mystery. To conclude, it is held that the petitioner was under duty to

prove the fact that Annexure P-2 is result of objection made by the petitioner. The pleadings and the evidence are as

vague as it could be and the petitioner has completely failed to discharge his burden of pleading and proof in the instant

election petition.

14.

In a case law reported in (1999) 1 SCC 666 — L.R. Shivarama Gowda vs. T.M. Chandrashekhar (para 10)

Their Lordship of the Supreme Court have laid down the law that in order to declare an election to be void under section

100(1)(d)(iv), it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election so far as it relates

to returned candidate has been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of the

rules. Now reverting the election petition, it would go to show that the specific pleading is absent about the fact that the

election result has been materially affected for non-compliance of any rules or the provision. In the case in hand since the

court is examining the allegation of election petition as against the will of the people, therefore, the necessary pleading to

this effect has to be there in the election petition to hold that there is a violation of specific rules or direction issued by the

Election Commission coupled with the fact that the result of the election of the returned candidate has been materially

affected by the alleged non-compliance.

15.

The Supreme Court in case of Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 SCC 386 in para 40 held

that "the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking

such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. The Court further held that setting aside of an

election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public at

large inasmuch as re-election involves an enormous load on the public funds and administration. Therefore, the inference

is strict pleading of facts has to be followed by proof of facts.

16.

In view of the pleadings and evidence, the Court has no hesitation that the election petitioner has miserably

failed to prove the pleadings and averments made by him. Neither any document has been exhibited which was attached

with the petition by calling the original nor any officers were called to prove the same. Therefore, the photocopies of the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 16] 2018@T;s"B 26] 1940

documents attached with the petition remain as not proved. Consequently, no cognizance can be taken in this election

petition about the existence of such document.

17.

In the result, it is held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the returning candidate has failed to

give information as per section 8 of the R.P. Act 1951 nor is able to prove that the rejection of the objection raised by

the returning officer was illegal and void. Further, the petitioner has been failed to prove that the returning officer

acted illegally in not rejecting the nomination papers of the respondent thereby the petitioner has failed to prove issue

Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

18.

with respect to issue no. 1, the said issue was primarily made on the pleading of the returned candidate that the

petitioner had not served the petition under his signature and was not properly verified by him. In this respect, if the

evidence of respondent No.l is seen it appears that the respondent was not serious to prove such fact and only superfluous

statement has been made, therefore, only on the basis of averments in absence of any direct proof thereof the returned

candidate has failed to discharge his burden as was raised by him which was framed under Issue No. 1.

19.

Therefore, on over all scrutiny of the entire pleadings and evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the election

petitioner has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition cannot be allowed or

entertained only on presumption of facts and oral evidence. In the result, the petition has no merit and is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

[No. 82/CG-HP/(15/2014)/2018]

By Order,

NARENDRA N. BUTOLIA, Principal Secy.

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

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

KUMAR

Digitally signed by

ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2018.06.20

17:27:53 +05'30'