Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagdish Narayan Sharma vs Laxmi Narayan Sharma And Ors on 20 July, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6401/2017
Jagdish Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Narayan Sharma, by Caste
Brahmin, Aged About 52 Years, Village Malawala, Village
Panchayat Roopwas, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Laxmi Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Ramu, by Caste Brahmin, Aged
About 45 Years, Village Roopwas, Village Panchayat Roopwas,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Baldev Yogi S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Yogi, Village Mundla (Jogiyon
Ki Dhani) Village Panchayat Roopwas, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Returning Officer Through District Election Officer, District
Office, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 20/07/2017 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, whereby the election-petition filed by the petitioner against the returned candidate has been dismissed.
The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondent No.2 another contesting candidate who lost the election to the returned candidate alongwith the petitioner was ineligible to contest the election (2 of 3) [CW-6401/2017] on the post of Sarpanch and yet his nomination form having been improperly accepted, the election of the returned- candidate was liable to be set aside.
I am afraid that the argument is without any merit. Improper acceptance of nomination form can not by itself be a ground for setting aside an election, unless it is also alleged and proved that such improper acceptance materially affected the outcome of the election. The Apex Court in the case of Vashit Narain Sharma vs. Dev Chandra & Ors., [AIR 954 (SC) 513] has held that the mere fact that the wasted votes (secured by the ineligible candidate) were greater than the margin of the votes between the returned candidate and the candidate securing the next higher number of votes cannot lead to the necessary inference that the result of the returned candidate has been materially affected. It has to be pleaded and proved. In the instant case only because the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted polled 100 odd votes, more than the margin of victory of the returned candidate over the election petitioner, which was 26 votes, was of no event. The election petitioner failed to plead and prove that any of the votes cast for the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted would have been cast for him if that aforesaid candidate had not contested. Not even such an issue was framed before the Trial Court and obviously no finding thereon to the petitioner's benefit for (3 of 3) [CW-6401/2017] warranting the setting aside of the returned candidate's election as Sarpanch obtains.
Consequently the election of returned-candidate could not be set side on the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination form of the Respondent No.2.
No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner to impugn the election of the returned candidate.
I therefor find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Himanshu Soni
6.