Delhi High Court
State Election Commissioner vs Shri Prem Nath & Others on 3 September, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
20 & 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7890/2007
Date of decision: 3rd September, 2009.
SURJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.D. Gupta, Mr. Kamal Gupta & Mr.
Abhishek Gupta, Advocates.
versus
PREM ANTH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Advocate for respondent No.
18.
+ W.P.(C) 7915/2007
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Advocate.
versus
SRI PREM NATH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. P.D. Gupta, Mr. Kamal Gupta & Mr.
Abhishek Gupta, Advocates for respondent No.
18.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
CM No. 9838/2009 in W.P. (C) No. 7890/2007
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the
present application. Permission is granted.
W.P. (C) Nos. 7890/2007 & 7915/2007 Page 1
The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
W.P.(C) No. 7890/2007 & W.P.(C) No. 7915/2007
1. It is admitted that Mr. Surjit Singh, who was declared elected as
Councillor from Municipal Ward No. 12 in the elections held to Delhi
Municipal Corporation on 5th April, 2007, has expired. Before his death,
the election of Mr. Surjit Singh was challenged by Mr. Prem Nath before
the learned Additional District Judge under Section 15 of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. By the impugned judgment dated 18 th
October, 2007, election of Mr. Surjit Singh was set aside with a direction to
the Election Commission that the candidate, who had polled the second
highest number of votes, should be declared as a returned candidate. It is
an admitted case of the parties that the respondent No. 1, Mr. Prem Nath,
had secured the second highest number of votes in the said election.
2. Mr. Surjit Singh has filed W.P. (C) No. 7890/2007 against the
findings and directions given by the learned Additional District Judge in the
judgment dated 18th October, 2007. The State Election Commission has
also filed W.P. (C) No. 7915/2007.
3. The legal heirs of Mr. Surjit Singh have not filed any application for
being substituted and brought on record as they want to contest the
findings and observations in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Prem Nath, states that they will
like to have fresh elections in the said constituency and he does not claim
that the respondent No. 1 should be declared as a returned candidate. He
W.P. (C) Nos. 7890/2007 & 7915/2007 Page 2
further states that respondent No. 1 had not made any prayer under
Section 16(1)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for
declaration that he or any other candidate should be declared as duly
elected, as a returned candidate. Learned counsel appearing for the State
Election Commission also submits that the direction given by the learned
Additional District Judge in the order dated 18th October, 2007 that the
candidate, who had polled the second highest number of votes be
declared as a returned candidate, is unjustified and contrary to law. As
noticed above, Mr. Prem Nath, respondent No. 1 herein is the candidate,
who had polled the second highest number of votes after Mr. Surjit Singh.
4. In view of the above statements and the factual position, the
direction of the learned Additional District Judge in the order dated 18th
October, 2007 to declare the candidate, who had polled the second
highest number of votes as a returned candidate, is set aside. The writ
petition filed by the State Election Commission is allowed to this extent.
The writ petition filed by Mr. Surjit Singh is not required to be adjudicated
on other aspects including his disqualification as he has already expired.
The State Election Commission is at liberty to take steps for fresh elections
in accordance with law.
The writ petitions are disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) Nos. 7890/2007 & 7915/2007 Page 3
