LexNANDIESHA REDDY versus MRS. KAVITHA MAHESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2011] 8 S.C.R. 154 NANDIESHA REDDY v. MRS. KAVITHA MAHESH (Civil Appeal No. 5142 of.2011) JULY 8, 2011 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951: ss. 83, 87 and 100 (1)(c) of the Act and 0. 6, r. 16, 0. 7, r. 11 CPC - Election petition - Challenging the election of the Returned Candidate - On the ground that nomination of the election petitioner was illegally not accepted by the D Returning Officer - Applications for striking off the pleadings and for dismissal of the petition for non-compliance of ss. 33 and 34 and on the ground that the election petition did not contain concise statement of material facts and that the material facts did not disclose any cause of action - "Material facts" - Connotation of - HELD: From a plain reading of the E averments made in the election petition, it is evident that the election petitioner has averred that nomination paper was signed by 10 electors, she asked for the latest electoral roll for verifying and extracting the part numbers and serial numbers of the proposers, but it was denied and when she F delivered the nomination paper to the Returning Officer, he did not receive the same - These statements at this stage have to be accepted as true - Thus, the election petition does contain material facts and one of the grounds for declaring the election as void in terms of s. 100 (1) (c) was specifically G pleaded - Therefore, the election petition is not liable to be dismissed at the threshold and the matter is fit to go for trial - Whether the material facts are true or not is a matter of trial - The High Court has rightly rejected the applications - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 6, r. 16 and 0. 7, r. 1. H 154 NANDIESHA REDDY v. KAVITHA MAHESH 155 s. 81 - Election petition - Locus - "Candidate" - A Connotation of - -HELD: An election petition, calling in question any election can be presented by any.candidate at such election - Candidate would not be only such person whose nomination has been found valid - In the instant case, there is clear averment in the election petition that nomination 8 paper was subscribed by 10 electors and delivered to the Returning Officer, but he did not receive the same - Thus, the election petitioner shall be deemed to be a candidate entitled to challenge the election of the returned candidate. s. 33 - Election to the State Legislative Assembly - C Rejection of nomination - HELD: When a nomination paper is presented, it is the bounden duty of the Returning Officer to receive the same, peruse it, point out the defects, if any,. and allow the candidate to rectify the defects and when the defects are not removed, then alone the question of rejection D of nomination would arise. s. 34 -Election to State Legislative Assembly - Deposit to be made by the candidate - Nomination paper not received by the Returning Officer- HELD: There was still time E for presenting the nominatiqn paper and had the same been accepted for scrutiny the deposit could have been made by the. election· petitioner. . The election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly was challenged by the respondent in an F election petition before the High Court on the ground that the nomination of the election petitioner was illegally not accepted by the Returning Officer. According to the election schedule, the last date for submission of nomination was 23.4.2008 whereas the scrutiny of the G nomination papers was to be undertaken on 24.4.2008 and the date of election was 10.5.2008. After de-limitation, . the original constituency was split in three constituencies. In order to contest the election from the H 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R. A Constituency concerned, according to the election petitioner, she obtained a set of nomination forms from the Returning Officer on 19.4.2008 and delivered the same together with all annexures to the Returning Officer on 23.4.2008 and requested·him to furnish the latest electoral i 8 roll of the Constituency concerned in order to extract the new part numbers of the proposers for incorporating the same iri the appropriate column, but she was not supplied the latest electoral roll and when she submitted the nomination papers, the same were not received; and C this rendered the election of the appellant null and void. The appellant filed two applications - one under 0. 6 r.16 CPC fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.