ELEP/4/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1297 UK

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      25.04.2022                        ELEP No. 4 of 2022
                                        Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The present Election Petition has been presented by the petitioner, a candidate at election, on the grounds enumerated in Section 100 (1)(b), Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 with the following reliefs;

(i) Allow the present Election Petition and declare the election of the respondent no. 1, Mr. Sarwat Kareem Ansari (Returned candidate) to the 5th Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly from the 33-Manglaur Assembly Constituency, as void under Section 100 (1)(d) r/w Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) as well as Section 100 (1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951;

(ii) Impose penalty on the respondent no. 1, under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act 1951; and,

(iii) Declare the petitioner Mr. Qazi Mohammad Nizamuddin, as duly elected to the 5th Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly from the 33-Manglaur Assembly Constituency, under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. Heard Mr. Devdatt Kamat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Javedur Dahman, Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner Mr. Qazi Mohammad Nizamuddin is present in-person before the Court.

4. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Returned Candidate, the respondent no. 1, did not disclose his non-agricultural property, financial immovable assets of his spouse, his income tax return in his nomination form. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the Returned Candidate concealed the fact of F.I.R., which was registered against him. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the respondent no. 1 had wrongly informed his educational qualification.

5. The learned Senior Advocate argued that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the Returned Candidate, the respondent no. 1, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination by the Returning Officer and by non-compliance with the provisions of the said Act, 1951. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that it was incumbent upon the Returned Candidate, respondent no. 1, to have disclosed the information sought for in the nomination form and non- furnishing of the required information would amount to suppression/non- disclosure.

6. The learned Senior Advocate also argued that if the improper acceptance of nomination is of the Returned Candidate, there is no necessity of proof that the election has been materially affected as the Returned Candidate would not have been able to contest the election, if his nomination was not accepted. In these circumstances, the learned Senior Advocate argued that the election of the returned candidate, the respondent no. 1, is liable to be set- aside. In support of these submissions, the learned Senior Advocate has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mairembam Prithviraj alias Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh", (2017) 2 SCC

487.

7. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate, prima facie case is made out to issue notice to the respondents.

8. Issue notice to the respondents by ordinary post and by registered post, as per Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Chapter XV- A of the High Court Rules, to appear before this Court and answer the claims made in this petition. Notice of the Election Petition shall also be simultaneously published in a newspaper as per rules.

9. Steps to be taken within seven days.

10. List this matter on 07.06.2022.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 25.04.2022

AK