Rajasthan High Court
Babu Lal Meghwal vs State/Chief Election ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Election Petition No. 3/2014
Babu Lal Meghwal S/o Late Bheru Lal, aged about 42 years,
resident of Khedli Phatak, Station Road Kota (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Election Commissioner of India, through Chief Election
Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Electoral Officer Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The District Election Officer (District Collector) Kota
(Rajasthan)
4. The Returning Officer (S.D.M.) Ramganj Mandi Kota
(Rajasthan)
5. Gurudas Kamat, Secretary General, Indian National
Congress, 24 Akbar Road, New Delhi 110011.
6. Dr.Chandraban, State President, Indian National Congress
Committee, State Officer Rajasthan, Indira Gandhi Bhavan,
Station Road, Jaipur
7. Babu Lal S/o Nand Lal, 118 Kha, Rishabh Colony, Ramganj
Mandi, Kota (Rajasthan)
8. Chandra Kanta Meghwal (Winning Candidate from B.J.P.)
Ramganj Mandi Kota (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kaleem Ahmed Khan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Raghav, AAG
Dr.V.B.Shama, AAG
Mr.B.C.Chirania, Adv.
Mr.Girish Bhabhra, Adv. for Mr.Ashok
Mishra, Adv. for respondent No.6
Mr.Avesh Mourya, Adv. &
Mr.Mehul Kapoor, Adv. for
Mr.H.C.Mourya, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Judgment
26/08/2021
This Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 80, 80A(1), (2) & (3) and 81 of the Representation of the
People's Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951').
(2 of 4) [EP-3/2014]
The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of declaration of
result of Assembly Elections 2013 for Ramganj Mandi Constituency
No.192.
The petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the
petitioner was a member of Congress Party since last 15 years and
it was decided by the Central Body of party that he will be the
contesting candidate for Assembly Election 2013 in Rajasthan for
the Ramganj Mandi Constituency reserved for SC Category and as
such the petitioner is said to be authorized by General Secretary
of the Congress Party to contest the election as a Congress
candidate.
The petitioner has levelled allegation that after receiving due
information from the party Headquarter, he had filed his
nomination form for contesting the election under the banner of
Indian National Congress and as such he submitted his nomination
form before the Returning Officer, Ramganj Mandi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nomination
of the petitioner was to be taken up for scrutiny by the Returning
Officer and as such, the authorization form, which was to be
submitted before the Returning Officer, was also to be considered
in a proper manner by the Returning Officer.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, later on came
to know that his nomination form has been rejected on account of
not having proper authorization from Indian National Congress
and as such the petitioner has a grievance that the other
candidate - the respondent No.7 - Babu Lal has been permitted to
contest the election under the banner of Indian National Congress.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present
petition has raised following two grounds in the Election Petition:-
(3 of 4) [EP-3/2014]
(a) The Act of the respondent No.3 i.e. District Collector,
Kota was not in accordance with law as envisaged in Section 36 of
the Act of 1951 with regard to the scrutiny of nominations.
(b) There is a violation of Section 100 sub-section (1) sub-
clause d(i) by improper acceptance of nomination form.
This Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as
whether this Election Petition still requires adjudication, in view of
subsequent assembly elections held in the year 2018.
Learned counsel Mr.Kaleem Ahmed Khan appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that this Election Petition is required to
be decided by this Court on merits and the petition has not
become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sheodan Vs.Mohan
Lal Gautam reported in 1969 LawSuit (SC) 20.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the
said judgment, submitted that even if the term of assembly is
over or any assembly is dissolved then the proceedings in the
Election Petition cannot be rendered infructuous and the Court is
required to decide the Election Petition on the merits of the case.
I have gone through the judgment of the Apex Court
produced by learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the
Apex Court has clearly laid down the law that the Election Petition
does not abate only on the ground that Returning Officer resigned
or the Assembly was dissolved. The Apex Court has further held
that if there is an allegation of corrupt practice as one of the
grounds for challenging the election of the returned candidate,
then the matter still requires to be decided on merits.
(4 of 4) [EP-3/2014]
This Court finds that in the present Election Petition, the
grounds on which the Election Petition is filed, is relating to
improper rejection of his nomination form and there is no
allegation of corrupt practice against the returned candidate.
This Court further finds that term of the Assembly Election,
in which the petitioner intended to contest, has come to an end in
the year 2018 and further elections have been held for the
another term starting from 2018 for a further period of five years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least the
issue involved in the Election Petition is of academic nature and
this Court is required to adjudicate this important issue.
I am afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner.
This Court finds that if the ground of challenge in the Election
Petition is only with regard to improper rejection of nomination, no
such occasion arises for this Court to adjudicate on this issue.
Accordingly the Election Petition stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Monika/64
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
