Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri vs State Election Commission on 8 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT
JUDGE (SOUTH), SAKET, NEW DELHI
(I) Election Petition No. 02/2012
ID No.: 02406C0101702012
Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri
s/o Sh. Bir Singh,
R/o F40, Churiya Mohalla,
Vill. Tekhand,
New Delhi 110020. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Election Commission
Through Sh. Rakesh Mehta
Office of State Election Commissioner
Government of NCT, Delhi
Old Hindu College Compound
Nigam Bhawan, Kashmiri Gate,
New Delhi 110006.
2. Chief Electrol Officer, Delhi
Delhi Government of NCT, Delhi
Old Siant Stephen College Building
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.
3. Returning Officer of Ward No. 199 Tekhand (G)
Through State Election Commission,
Government of NCT, Delhi
Old Hindu College Compound,
4. ARO
Ward No. 199 Tekhand (G)
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 1 of 48
Through State Election Commission,
Government of NCT, Delhi
Old Hindu College Compound,
5. Sahi Ram s/o Sh. Suraj Mal,
Elected candidateBahujan Samaj Party
321, Churia Mohalla,
Village Tekhand, New Delhi 110020.
6. Sunil Kumar Verma
Defeated Candidate
H. No. 310, Churia Mohalla,
Tekhand Village,
New Delhi 110020.
7. Gyanender Kumar Mavi
Defeated Candidate
House No. 999/9, Mavi Mohalla,
Village Tekhand,
New Delhi 110020.
8. Subash Chand
Defeated Candidate
E10, Indira Kalyan Camp,
Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseI,
New Delhi 110020.
9. Swetwan Tripathi
Defeated Candidate
E71, Indira Kalyan Vihar Camp,
Okhla PhaseI,
New Delhi 110020.
10. Dharam Raj
Defeated Candidate
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 2 of 48
146, Mavi Mohalla, Tekhand Village,
New Delhi 110020.
11. Rekha Singh
Defeated Candidate
184/49, BlockC, New Sanjay Camp,
Okhla PhI, New Delhi 110020.
12. Vikash Kumar Mavi
Defeated Candidate
E1, Mavi Mohalla, Tekhand,
New Delhi 110020.
13. Amit Bidhuri
Defeaed Candidate
F263, Churia Mohalla,
Tekhand Village,
New Delhi 110020.
14. Rajendra Prasad
Defeated Candidate
106, Allah Mohalla, Tekhand Village
New Delhi 110020.
15. Mahesh Kumar
Defeated Candidate
F109, Churia Mohalla, Village Tekhand,
New Delhi 110020. ... Respondents
(II) Election Petition No. 04/2012
ID No.: 02406C0103122012
Sunil Kumar Verma
son of Sh. Gyaninder Verma
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 3 of 48
R/o H. No. 310, Churia Mohalla
Vill. Tehkhand, New Delhi 20. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sahi Ram
s/o Suraj Mal,
R/o H. No. 321, Churia Mohalla
Vill. Tehkhand, New Delhi20.
2. Subash Chand
s/o not known
R/o E10, Indira Kalyan Camp
Okhla Industrial Area PhaseI
New Delhi.
3. Gyanender Kumar Mavi,
R/o H. No. 999/9, Mavi Mohalla,
Vill. Tehkhand, New Delhi
4. Dharam Raj
R/o 146, Mavi Mohalla,
Vill. Tehkhand, New Delhi.
5. Amit Bidhuri
R/o F263, Churia Mohalla,
Tehkhand Village, New Delhi.
6. Mahesh Kumar
R/o F109, Churia Mohalla,
Vill. Tehkhand, New Delhi.
7. Rajender Prasad
R/o 106, Allah Mohalla,
Vill. Tehkhand, New Delhi.
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 4 of 48
8. Rekha Singh
R/o 184/49, BlockC
New Sanjay Camp,
Okhla PhaseI, New Delhi.
9. Vikash Kumar Mavi
R/o E1, Mavi Mohalla,
Tehkhand, New Delhi.
10. Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri
R/o F40, Churia Mohalla
Village Tehkhand, New Delhi.
11. Swetwan Tripathi
R/o E71, Indira Kalayan Vihar Camp
Okhla, PhaseI, New Delhi. ... Respondents
(III) Election Petition No. 05/2012
ID No.: 02406C0103032012
Premdeep Balhara son of Sh. Rati Ram,
Resident of House No. C48,
Freedom Fighters Enclave,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi 110068. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Mayor, Aurobindo Marg,
Green Park, New Delhi 110024.
2. The Chief Election Officer of Delhi,
Old St. Stephen's College Building,
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 5 of 48
Kashmere Gate, Delhi110006.
3. The Returning Officer,
SaidulAjaib Constituency,
Ward No. 173, New Delhi 110030.
4. Rampal Yadav son of Chander Yadav
Resident of 5, SaidulAjaib,
New Delhi 110030.
5. Shiv Kumar son of Sh. Gopi Chand,
Resident of House No. 148, Maidangarhi,
New Delhi 110068.
6. Surendra Balhara son of Sh. Dharampal,
Resident of House No. 54, Neb Sarai,
New Delhi 110068. ... Respondents
(IV) Election Petition No. 06/2012
ID No.: 02406C0103302012
Dr. Nandani Sharma
wife of Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma
R/o E14, Geetanjali Enclave
New Delhi 110017. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Nutan Kochar
wife of Sh. Jitender Kochar
R/o E3/1 Malviya Nagar
New Delhi 110017.
2. Shabana Bano
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 6 of 48
w/o not known
R/o 267/A, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017.
3. Munni Begum
w/o not known
R/o 268, M11, Hauz Rani
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017.
4. Richa Walia
w/o not known
R/o K4/F, First Floor,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017.
5. State Election Commission
N. C. T. of Delhi
Through the State Election Commissioner
Nigam Bhawan,
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi 110006. ... Respondents.
(V) Election Petition No. 07/2012
ID No.: 02406C0143432012
Jagvir Singh
s/o late Sh. Mahabir Singh
R/o A1`21C, Saurabh Vihar
Badarpur, New Delhi. ... Petitioner
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 7 of 48
Versus
1. Sikha Shah
w/o Sh. Narsingh Sah
R/o C47, Hari Nagar Extn.
PartII, New Delhi.
2. The Returning Officer
[MCD Election 2012 for Ward No. 201 Jaitpur]
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi 110054.
3. The Election Commissioner
Delhi State Election Commission
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi. ... Respondent
Instituted on: 02.05.2012 [02/12], 03.05.2012 [04/12 & 05/12],
04.05.2012 [06/12], and 12.07.2011 [07/12].
Judgment reserved on:18.12.2012 [02/12, 04/12, 06/12 & 07/12],
and 03.01.2013 [05/12].
Judgment pronounced on: 08.01.2013.
J U D G M E N T
1. All these five election petitions have been preferred under Section 15 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the DMC Act") to challenge the declaration of the results in favour of the returned candidates for different Wards in the municipal elections held under the provisions of the said Act on 15.04.2012 for constituting, inter Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 8 of 48 alia, South Delhi Municipal Corporation. In all these election petitions, question of maintainability have been raised, mainly on the account of nonjoinder of certain persons as respondents. The preliminary issues that thus arise in these proceedings have given rise to common questions of law. Therefore, these petitions were heard together and the preliminary issues are being decided through this common order.
2. It is undisputed case on all sides in these cases that the Election Commission had issued on 19.03.2012 a notification under Section 11(3) of DMC Act for the municipal elections declaring the schedule specifying 26.03.2012 as the last date by which the nomination papers could be filed by individuals offering their candidature and 28.03.2012 as the date on which the scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be taken up. The notification specified the date 30.03.2012 as the last date by which the candidature could be withdrawn. The polling was held, as scheduled, on 15.04.2012, followed by counting of votes on 17.04.2012. The result of the election was notified and published in the Official Gazette on 19.04.2012. Election Petition No. 02/2012 & 04/2012
3. The election petition no. 02/2012 and election petition no. Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 9 of 48 04/2012 are connected to each other, in that both relate to the election held for the same Ward, namely Ward No. 199 Tehkhand (G). The election resulted in Sh. Sahi Ram son of Sh. Suraj Mal resident of 321, Churia Mohalla, Village Tehkhand, New Delhi20 being declared victorious. The said result has been challenged by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri son of Sh. Bir Singh in election petition no. 02/2012. The same result has also been challenged by Sh. Sunil Kumar Verma son of Sh. Gyanender Verma in election petition no. 04/2012. Both the petitioners in election petition nos. 02/2012 and 04/2012 were themselves candidates contesting at the said election and apparently were declared to be unsuccessful.
4. It has been brought on record that, in all, 18 persons filed their nomination papers during the prescribed period for election to Ward No.199. During scrutiny, the nomination papers of six candidates, namely (i) Sh. Praveen Kumar son of Sh. Chandan Singh, (ii) Sh. Braham Singh son of Sh. Ganga Ram, (iii) Ms. Asha d/o Sh. Ram Iqbal; (iv) Ms. Saroj d/o late Mohan Sagar;
(v) Sh. Mahender Singh s/o Sh. Gopi Ram, and (vi) Arun Singh son of Sh. Giriraj Singh were rejected. This left twelve candidates in the fray including Sh. Sahi Ram and the two Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 10 of 48 petitioners herein. Sh. Sahi Ram has been impleaded in these election petitions as respondent no.5 and respondent no.1 respectively. The remaining ten candidates (that is excluding the respective petitioners) have been impleaded as respondents no. 6 to 15 in election petition no. 02/2012 and respondents no. 2 to 11 in election petition no. 04/2012 respectively.
5. Admittedly, the six above mentioned persons whose nomination papers were rejected and, thus, not shown in the ballot paper, have not been made a party in either of the two election petitions.
6. In the election petition no. 02/2012, the State Election Commission, Chief Electoral Officer, Returning Officer of Ward No. 199 and Assistant Returning Officer have been made respondent no.1 to 4. Respondent no.3 filed written statement contesting the petition, interalia, taking exception to the non joinder of "all the candidates at the election". Similar objection has been taken by respondent no.5 in his written statement. Respondent no.1 in election petition no. 04/2012 took a similar preliminary objection through his written statement filed on that record. Thus preliminary issues to the following effect have been framed in both the said cases vide orders dated Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 11 of 48 18.12.2012:
"Whether the election petition is incurably bad on account of defect on nonjoinder of six candidates namely Parveen Kumar, Braham Singh, Asha, Saroj, Mahender Singh and Arun Singh, whose nomination papers were rejected? If so, its effect?"
Election Petition No.05/2012
7. The election petition no. 05/2012 relates to the election held for Ward no. 173 SaidulAjaib in which Sh. Rampal Yadav son of Sh. Chander Yadav, resident of 5, SaidulAjaib, New Delhi110030 was declared victorious. The said result has been challenged by Premdeep Balhara son of Sh. Rati Ram, resident of C48, Freedom Fighters Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi110068. The petitioner was himself a candidate contesting at the said election.
8. It has been brought on record that in all six persons had filed their nomination papers during the prescribed period for election to Ward No. 173. During scrutiny, the nomination paper of Ms. Mamta Balhara wife of Sh. Prem Deep resident of C48, Freedom Fighters Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi was rejected. Another candidate Sh. Bijender Singh son of Ram Karan resident of 50, 5 Biswa Mohalla, Maidan Garhi, New Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 12 of 48 Delhi withdrew his candidature. Thus, four candidates were left in the fray including the petitioner and Sh. Ram Pal Yadav, who has been impleaded as respondent no.4, others being Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Surendra Balhara, who have been impleaded as respondents no. 5 & 6 respectively.
9. Admittedly, Ms. Mamta Balhara whose nomination paper was rejected and Sh. Bijender Singh, who withdrew his candidature, and whose names were not shown in the ballot paper have not been made party in this election petition.
10. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, The Chief Election Officer of Delhi and the Returning Officer have been made as respondents no. 1 to 3 in this election petition no. 05/2012. In their written statements, respondents no.3 and 4 have raised the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the election petition on account of nonjoinder of the above mentioned two persons.
11.Thus, a preliminary issue to the following effect was framed vide order dated 18.12.2012:
"Whether the election petition is incurably bad for nonjoinder of two candidates one Mr. Bijender Singh who withdrew his nomination and the other Mamta Balhara whose nomination papers were rejected? If Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 13 of 48 so, its effect?"
Election Petition No. 06/2012
12. The election petition no. 06/2012 relates to the election held for Ward No. 162 (Woman) Hauz Rani. The election resulted in Smt. Nutan Kochar wife of Sh. Jitender Kochar resident of E3/1, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017 being declared victorious. The said result has been challenged by Dr. Nandani Sharma wife of Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma resident of E14, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi 110017, who herself was a candidate contesting at the said election and declared unsuccessful.
13.It has been brought on record that, in all, eleven nomination papers were filed during the prescribed period for election to Ward No. 162 (Woman) Hauz Rani. There were four candidates who had filed nomination papers in duplicate. Nomination paper of one candidate named Mst. Rukshar wife of Sh. Mohammad Salim resident of E11/21A, Block E11, Hauz Rani, Delhi 110017 was rejected during scrutiny. Another candidate Ms. Niharika Kochar daughter of Sh. Jitender Kochar resident of E3/1, Malviya Nagar, Delhi withdrew her candidate. Thus, five candidates were left in the fray including Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 14 of 48 the petitioner and Smt. Nutan Kochar, who has been impleaded as respondent no. 1 in the election petition. The other three candidates in the fray whose names were shown in the ballot paper included Mst. Shabana Bano wife of Sh. Firoz Khan resident of 267/A, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017, Ms. Richa Walia wife of Sh. Ajeya Walia resident of K4/F, First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017 and Mst. Munni Begum wife of Sh. Bhure Khan resident of 268, MI/I, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017. The said three other candidates have been impleaded as respondents no. 2 to 4.
14.Admittedly, Mst Rukshar, whose nomination paper was rejected, and Ms. Niharika Kochar, who withdrew her candidature, have not been impleaded as party in this election petition. The State Election Commission has been impleaded as respondent no.5 in this case.
15.In their written statement, respondents no.1 & 5 have raised preliminary objection to the effect that the election petition is bad for nonjoinder of above said two persons namely Ms. Niharika Kochar and Mst. Rukhsar as party to the case.
16.Thus, the following preliminary issue was framed on Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 15 of 48 30.10.2012 in election petition no. 06/12:
"Whether the petition is liable to be rejected on account of nonimpleadment of the other candidates at the election? OPD."
Election Petition No. 07/2012
17. The election petition no. 07/2012 relates to the election held for Ward No. 201 Jaitpur. The election resulted in Smt. Sikha Shah wife of Sh. Narsingh Sah resident of C437, Hari Nagar Extn. PartII, New Delhi being declared victorious. The said result has been challenged by the petitioner Jagvir Singh son of Sh. Mahabir Singh resident of A121C, Saurabh Vihar, Badarpur, New Delhi claiming locus standi on account of he being one of the electors of the said municipal ward.
18.It has come on record that twenty five candidates had filed nomination papers for election to Ward No. 201 Jaitpur. They included (i) Smt. Nutun Jha, (ii) Smt. Shahjha, (iii) Smt. Sikha Shah, (iv) Smt. Suman Mishra, (v) Ms. Nasima Begum, (vi) Smt. Shakuntla Devi, (vii) Smt. Sangita Sharma, (viii) Mst. Nasim Ara Begum, (ix) Smt. Susham Mishra, (x) Smt. Saraswati, (xi) Smt. Anamika, (xii) Smt. Savita, (xiii) Smt. Santosh Sharma, (xiv) Shamson Nisha, (xxv) Smt. Indu, (xvi) Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 16 of 48 Mst. Sarun Nisha, (xvii) Smt. Bhupender Kaur, (xviii) Mst. Rehana, (xix) Smt. Kusum, (xx) Mst. Najis Ahmad, (xxi) Smt. Usha Singh, (xxii) Smt. Raj Kumar, (xxiii) Smt. Kiran Raj, (xxiv) Smt. Kirshna Kaur and (xv) Mst. Gulnaz Begum. Three candidates Smt. Raj Kumar, Smt. Krishna Kaur and Smt. Gulnaz Begum withdrew their candidature. Thus, twenty two candidates were left in the fray including Smt. Sikha Shah who has been impleaded as respondent no.1 in the election petition. Admittedly, the other twenty one candidates at the election have not been made party in the election petition.
19.The Returning Officer for Ward No. 201 and Election Commissioner have been impleaded as respondents no.2 and 3 respectively in election petition no. 07/2012.
20.The petition has been contested through written statements filed by respondents no.1 and 2. Preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the petition is bad on account of non joinder of other candidates at the election.
21.As mentioned earlier, the result of the election was notified and published in the official Gazette on 19.04.2012. As per the provisions contained under Section 15(1) of DMC Act, an election petition can be preferred to call in question the election Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 17 of 48 of a candidate within 15 days from the date of publication of the result of the election under Section 14 of the Act. This election petition was preferred on 06.06.2012. Apparently, the petition has been preferred beyond the said period.
22.The petition is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The respondents have raised preliminary objection to the effect that the delay cannot be condoned and that the petition is time barred.
23.Section 31 of DMC Act vests in Central Government powers to make rules for regulating the elections of councillors. The matters for which such rules may be framed include "any other matter relating to electoral rolls or elections or election disputes in respect of which the Central Government deems it necessary to make rules under this section or in respect of which this Act makes no provision or makes insufficient provision and provision is, in the opinion of the Central Government, necessary".
24.The Central Government had framed rules in exercise of the aforesaid power vested in it, which rules were brought in force in the name of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 18 of 48 Councillors) Rules 1962. The said rules were subsequently superseded and replaced by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1970. The rules framed and brought in force in 1970 have also since been superseded and replaced by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 2012. For purposes of this order, Rules of 1962 and prevailing rules enforced in 2012 would be relevant. They shall hereinafter be referred to as "Rules 1962" and "Rules2012" respectively.
25.The subject of dispute regarding elections is covered by PartIV of Rules 2012. As per Rule 99(1) of Rules 2012, a person seeking to call in question a municipal election is required to enclose with the election petition a receipt showing deposit of Rupees Five thousand made by him with the Election Commission as security of the cost of the petition.
26.The petitioner in election petition no. 07/2012 admittedly did not deposit the said security amount with the Election Commission before filing the election petition. The respondents in the written statement have taken exception to this non compliance of statutory condition and sought rejection of the petition on this ground. The contention in the replication of the Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 19 of 48 petitioner is that he has been ready and willing to pay the security deposit but the same was not accepted by the Election Commission on the ground that had stopped receiving the deposits after the prescribed period of 15 days.
27.Thus, following preliminary issues were framed in the election petition no. 07/2012, vide order dated 30.10.2012:
"1. Whether the delay in filing of the election petition can be condoned ? OPP.
2. Whether the election petition is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation ? OPD.
3. Whether the non deposit of security in terms of Rule 99 (1) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (Election of Councillors) Rules 2012 at the inception is an incurable defect meriting rejection of the petition ? OPD.
4. Whether the petition is liable to be rejected on account of non impleadment of the other candidates at the election in terms of Rule 91 read with Rule 92 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (Election of Councillors) Rules 2012 ? OPD."
28. I have heard counsel on all sides at length in each of these five petitions. I have gone through the record.
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 20 of 48 OBJECTION OF NONJOINDER
29. The Representation of People Act, 1950 was enacted by Parliament to provide, interalia, for delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election to the House of the People (Lok Sabha), the legislature of States (legislative Assemblies), the qualification of voters at such election, the preparation of electoral rolls, the manner of filling seats in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) to be filled by representatives of Union Territories and the matters connected therewith. The said law did not contain all the provisions relating to the election and, therefore, the Representation of People Act, 1951 was enacted, interalia, to provide for the conduct of election of the Houses of Parliament and to the House/Houses of Legislature of each State, besides governing certain other areas including specifying what shall be deemed to be "corrupt practices" or decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such election. PartVI of the Representation of People Act, 1951 relates to disputes regarding elections. The provisions of the said enactment, however, relate to the elections held to fill seats of Union Legislature or the State Legislature.
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 21 of 48
30.It is well settled that the Representation of People Act, 1951 is "a complete and self contained code", within which must be found any right claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute pertaining to Parliament or State Legislature [Jyoti Basu & others Vs. Debi Ghosal & ors (AIR 1982 SC 983)].
31. The DMC Act was enacted to primarily consolidate and amend the law relating to municipal government of Delhi. The DMC Act, as originally enacted, envisaged a corporation charged with municipal government of Delhi to be appointed by notification and to be known as Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The law has since been amended paving the way for trifurcation, as a result of which South Delhi Municipal Corporation is to be charged with the responsibility of municipal government for the territorial division named as South Delhi. Under the statutory provisions, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation is to be composed of the councillors who are to be chosen by direct election on the basis of adult suffrage from various wards into which South Delhi is divided.
32.As per Section 7 of DMC Act, the responsibility of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of the election to the corporation is vested in the Election Commission Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 22 of 48 of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In exercise of the statutory powers vested in the concerned authority, elections were held for constituting South Delhi Municipal Corporation, as per schedule mentioned earlier. The results were notified and published by the Election Commission in the official Gazette under Section of DMC Act on 19.04.2012.
33.Sections 15 to 21 of DMC Act relate to the subject of dispute regarding election. Section 15 is relevant for purposes of the present discussion and, therefore, may be extracted as under: "15. Election Petitions. (1) No election of a councillor shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the court of the district judge of Delhi within fifteen days from the date of the publication of the result of the election under section 14.
(2) An election petition calling in question any such election may be presented under any of the grounds specified in Section 17 by any candidate at such election, by any elector of the ward concerned or by any councillor.
(3) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the candidates at the election. (4) An election petition
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 23 of 48
(b) shall, with sufficient particulars, set forth the ground or grounds on which the election is called in question; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908), for the verification of pleadings."
(emphasis supplied)
34. Section 16 DMC Act makes it clear that a petitioner preferring an election petition to call in question municipal election, may claim declaration to the effect that the election of a returned candidate is void besides further declaration that the petitioner himself or any other candidate had been duly election. Section 17 specifies the grounds for declaring the election to be void. These grounds include use or commission of corrupt practice by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with his consent.
35.It is clear from the bare reading of the above provisions that the period of limitation is prescribed as 15 days from the date of publication of the result of the election under Section 14 DMC Act. It is further clear from the bare reading of Section 15(a) that it is mandatory for the petitioner to join as respondent to his petition "all the candidates at the election". Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 24 of 48
36.The election of the returned candidates for the four municipal wards mentioned above have been called in question through the five election petitions at hand primarily on the allegations of use of corrupt practices.
37.As is clear from the pleadings noted above, all the candidates who had filed nomination papers have not been made respondent in each of these petitions.
38.In election petition no.07/2012 preferred by Sh. Jagvir Singh in exercise of his locus standi, he being an elector of the ward concerned, only the returned candidate (Smt. Sikha Shah) has been impleaded as respondent. As mentioned earlier, there were 25 candidates who had filed nomination papers out of whom three withdrew their candidature. Leaving aside the three candidates who had withdrawn their nomination papers, there were 21 other candidates who participated as contesting candidates. None of them has been joined as a party. In the face of objection to above effect taken, the said petitioner has contended in the replication that it was an inadvertent omission committed in order to avoid unnecessary harassment and expenses and further that, if necessary, the other candidates may be impleaded with permission of the court. Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 25 of 48
39.In the other four election petitions, the petitioners have joined as respondents only such candidates as had been finally left in the fray, that is to say the candidates whose names were included in the ballot paper. To put it simply, such other candidates who had filed nomination papers which were either rejected or withdrawn have not been joined as respondents.
40.While the contention of the respondents in the election petitions is that the expression "candidates at the election"
includes the candidates whose nomination papers were rejected or who had withdrawn their candidature, the petitioners contend to the contrary, their argument being that the expression "candidates at the election" only means such candidates as remained in the fray till the polling was held.
41.As mentioned earlier, PartIV of Rules2012 relates to dispute regarding elections held under the provisions of DMC Act. Rule 89(a) of Rules2012 defines , interalia, the expression "candidate" as under: "89. Definition: In this part, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) 'Candidate' means a person who has been or claiming to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election and any such person shall be deemed to have Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 26 of 48 been a candidate as from the time when with the election in prospect he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate;
42. As mentioned earlier, Section 15(3) makes it mandatory for the petitioner presenting an election petition to "join as respondents to his petition all the candidates at the election".
43.Rule 99 of Rules2012 as noted earlier makes it mandatory for deposit of Rs. 5,000/ to be made as security for the cost to be paid in the office of Election Commission and the receipt of such deposit to be filed with the election petition. It is apparent that such deposit has to be made before the election petition can be presented and, thus, must necessarily be made within 15 days from the date of publication of the result of election.
44.Rule 91 of Rules 2012 reads as under: "91. Petition to be dismissed. If the provisions of section 15 or rule 99 are not complied with the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition;
provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard."
45. It is plain that if a candidate at the election is not joined as partyrespondent to the election petition, it would be rendered Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 27 of 48 defective on account of nonjoinder. This defect may be cured, if a candidate moves an application seeking to be joined as respondent under Rule 92(2) of Rules 2012 which reads as under: "92(2) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon an application made by him to the court within fourteen days from the date fixed for the respondent to appear and subject to the provisions of rule 99, entitled to be joined as a respondent. "
46. The moot question in above mentioned factual matrix in each of these cases (except election petition no. 07/12) is as to whether such candidates who had filed nomination papers which were either rejected or withdrawn and who have not been joined as respondents are to be treated as "candidates at the election".
47. The connected question, more relevant for election petition no. 07/2012, is as to whether the defect of nonjoinder of contesting candidates in that case can be cured by opportunity now being given for left out candidates to be impleaded as respondents.
48. The respondents in these petitions have argued on the strength Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 28 of 48 of Dr. V. P. Dhingra Vs. Nihal Singh & others [AIR 1985 Delhi 8], Ram Partap Chandel Vs. Chaudhary Lajja Ram & others [(1998) 8 SCC 564], and Parveen Kumar Vs. Mohd. Naushad & others [ 181(2011) DLT 698] that the petitions are bad on account of nonjoinder and the default is incurable.
49. Per contra, petitioners rely on Jyoti Basu (supra), Sheo Kumar & anr. Vs. V.G. Oak & ors. [AIR 1953 All 633] and Shiv Chand Vs. Ujagar Singh & others [AIR 1978 SC 1583] to argue primarily that there is no defect, also urging for an opportunity to be given now to implead the other left out candidates as respondents. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that there is no requirement in the DMC Act or Rules for impleading all the candidates who had filed their nominations which were either withdrawn or rejected for various reasons, while filing an Election Petition challenging the election of a returned candidate.
50. The petitioners have argued that in the provision contained in Section 15(3) DMC Act, emphasis is placed particularly upon the words "at the election". It is submitted that a candidate at the election can only refer to a contesting candidate and not to any person who filed nomination but subsequently withdrew or Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 29 of 48 whose candidature was rejected. It was argued that the Allahbad High Court in Sheo Kumar (supra) has interpreted the words "candidate at the election" in the following manner:
"... it is obvious that the words "any candidate" are qualified by "at such election". They cannot be obviously include a person who withdraw himself from the contest before the election was over."
51. In the submission of petitioners particularly when there is no definition of the words "candidate" or "candidate at the election" in the DMC Act, the aforesaid interpretation would hold good and the petitioner is thus only required to implead candidates who had actually contested the election.
52.The petitioners further submitted that the petition is principally based on the definition of "Candidate" contained in Rule 89 of Rules2012. They point out that the opening words of Rule 89 states "In this part, unless the context otherwise requires". This, according to them, indicates that the definition contained in Rule 89(a) is only for that part i.e. PartIV of the Rules and not a general definition for all intents and purposes. There is no mandate for importing the definition contained in the Rules to the provisions of the MCD Act.
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 30 of 48
53. It is wellsettled that when any law has been enacted, the legislature must be presumed to be aware of all existing laws. (KSL and Industries Ltd. Vs. Arihant Threads Ltd. & ors. [(2008) 9SCC 763]. Ignorance of provisions of the DMC Act cannot be attributed to the rule makers. The government was aware of the provisions of the DMC Act and in particular Sec. 15(3) and chose not to extend the definition of the word "candidate" contained in Rule 89 to Section 15(3). Arguing thus, the petitioners submitted that in Rule 72 "Candidate" for the purpose of Chapter VII in PartIII should mean a "contesting candidate", and that there is no reason why one definition should be imported from the rules to the Act rather than the other.
54. It is further submission of the petitioners that PartIV of Rules2012 does not permit for impleadment of parties and instead permits through Rule 92(2) for deficiency to be cured. According to their submission, Rule 92 is the ostensible purpose for which an enlarged definition of "candidate" has been provided in Rule 89. The object is to provide an opportunity to a candidate who has filed his nomination but which has subsequently been withdrawn or rejected to seek impleadment Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 31 of 48 under Rule 92(2) if he is interested in the outcome of the Election Petition.
55. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that a conjoint effect of Section 15 DMC Act and Rule 92 of Rules2012 would be to the effect that the petitioners would implead the contesting candidates who are candidates at the election while such candidates whose names were withdrawn or rejected need not be impleaded as they are, prima facie, not interested in the outcome of the election petition. It was further submitted that in the event a person who filed his nomination but the same has been subsequently withdrawn or rejected, he may seek impleadment under Section 92(2) of Rules2012, if he is interested in the outcome of the election petition as he is a candidate within the meaning of the expression defined in Rule 89 of Rules2012.
56.The counsel further argued that importing the definition of the expression "candidate" that appears in Section 89 to the provision of Section 15 DMC Act would result in illogical and irrational considerations.
57.Elaborating on the above line of arguments, counsel relied on Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 32 of 48 Ltd. & ors. Etc. [(2001 4 SCC 139] and submitted that importing the definition contained in Rule 89 would render the words "at the election" contained in Section 15(3) otiose and redundant . Thus argued that if the interpretation canvassed by the respondents is accepted the result would be that persons who have withdrawn their nominations or whose nominations have been rejected would have to be impleaded despite them not being "candidates at the election". The Rules would then be contrary to the Act inasmuch as they would go beyond the terms of the Act. The counsel urged that only such interpretation be adopted as the one which saves the rules from becoming ultra vires and which harmonises the provisions of the Act.
58. It was further submitted by the petitioners that accepting the interpretation canvassed by the respondents would mean that the petitioner must implead the persons who have withdrawn their nominations or whose nominations have been rejected despite they having "no interest" in the outcome of the election petition. There would be no purpose served in such as an exercise and the State/Rules cannot be imputed with an illogical and irrational object. It was argued that such an interpretation Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 33 of 48 might render the provisions irrational and arbitrary and open to challenge being ultra vires to Article 14 of Constitution of India. In this context also, reliance was placed on Elphanstone Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. (supra).
59.It was argued that the entire purpose of laying down a stringent procedure and time limitation for election petitions is to ensure a speedy and expeditious disposal. By requiring impleadment of persons who have withdrawn their nominations or whose nominations have been rejected would only prolong the disposal of the election petition as they have no interest in the outcome in any case.
60.The petitioners placed heavy reliance on the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court (in para 8 of the judgment) in the case of Jyoti Basu (Supra):
"8. A right to elect, fundamental through it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be election. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creation they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 34 of 48 election petition is not an action at Common Law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket. X X X .....It is clear that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election. All others are excluded. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election.....
X X X ......However, desirable and expedient it may appear to be, non else shall be joined as respondents..."
(emphasis supplied)
61. The petitioners, thus, submitted that the definition of the word "candidate" for purposes of being impleaded as a respondent is Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 35 of 48 confined only to the candidates, who have not withdrawn their nominations and further who have been allotted electoral symbols for contesting the election. The term "candidate at an election" is used in the wider sense to define those persons whose nominations were rejected upon scrutiny or who withdrew their nominations (on their own or under duress), and they are entitled under the electoral laws to file election petitions for asserting their rights. It was submitted that the aforesaid has to be seen in context of the fact that the Representation of the People Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the rules framed thereunder specifically oust the jurisdiction of the courts during the election period till the conclusion of the election process, and all such challenges to the rejection of nomination, withdrawal under duress etc. are to be asserted only by way of an election petition by the said persons.
62. In above context, referring to Shiv Chand (supra), it has been submitted that "procedural tyranny compounded by lexically unwarranted technicality" cannot be tolerated in a court.
63.During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded that the provisions contained in Section 15 to 21 DMC Act and PartIV Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 36 of 48 of the Rules2012 together provide for "complete and self contained Code" for regulating the procedure and the manner in which municipal elections held under the said law can be called in question, just as the Representation of People Act, 1951 is the "Code" regulating such disputes concerning elections to the Union or State legislature. [Jyoti Basu (supra)].
64. The counsel for the petitioners in the course of their submission also sought to draw parallel with the provision contained in Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which concerns the election petitions brought under the said law.
65.Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads as under: "82. Parties to the petition. A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition
(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 37 of 48 in the petition."
66.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that since there is no similar provision contained in DMC Act, the aforesaid statutory prescription deserves to be borrowed for purposes at hand. In their submission, this would render the impleadment of left out candidates unnecessary and redundant. They also submitted that Rules2012 go beyond the ordinary powers of subordinate legislation by adding impossible conditions to the statutory requirement of impleadment of candidates at the election.
67.Undoubtedly, Section 82 of Representation of People Act, 1951, lays down a better and clearer prescription as to who is to be treated as necessary party in an election dispute under the said law. It makes a clear distinction between "contested candidate"
and a candidate who may not have actually contested the election which would undoubtedly mean a candidate whose nomination paper may have been rejected or withdrawn. I also find substance in the submission that the procedure of curing the defect of nonjoinder provided in Rule 92(2) of Rules2012, imposes conditions which are difficult, if not impossible, to be met. To illustrate this, one may refer to the limitation of 14 days prescribed in the said subrule, for application to be made Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 38 of 48 by a leftout candidate to be joined as a respondent without corresponding obligation either on the petitioner or on the court, to inform such person as to the filing of the petition.
There is substance in the contention that the period of limitation cannot begin to run without "knowledge" being gained. There is no mechanism either in DMC Act or in Rule2012 for left out candidates to be informed about the filing of the election petition.
68.But, unfortunately, DMC Act is totally silent on the subject. Further, it empowered the Central Government through Section 31(i)(k) of DMC Act to frame rules not only for regulating the procedure for election disputes but also to fill in areas in respect of which the said Act "makes no provision or makes insufficient provision".
69.Though the argument to above effect based on reading of Section 82 of Representation of People Act, 1951, is attractive, it cannot be applied to an election dispute under DMC Act, for reasons set out hereinafter.
70. For the interpretation of the statutory requirement to join as respondent the candidates in elections under the Representation of People Act, 1951 cannot have a bearing on the disputes at Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 39 of 48 hand. The election petitions presented before this court have to be decided in the light of interpretation that has been put to the provisions contained in DMC Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
71.For the above reasons, the law laid down in the cases of Jyoti Basu (supra) and Shiv Chand (supra) cannot come in aid of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the questions raised in the said two cases were materially different from the one raised in the petitions at hand. In Jyoti Basu (supra), an attempt had been made to join as respondent a person who was not even a candidate who may have filed nomination paper. In Shiv Chand (supra) the issue concerned only the entitlement of an unimpleaded unsuccessful candidate to be joined as a party.
72.Reliance on Sheo Kumar (supra) is also not correct. The said judgment was rendered by Hon'ble Allahbad High Court and did not concern an election held under DMC Act. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. V. P. Dhingra (supra) which concerned election dispute under DMC Act is the direct binding precedent on the subject.
73. In V. P. Dhingra (supra) the expression "candidate at the Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 40 of 48 election" as appearing in Section 15(3) DMC Act came up for interpretation, interalia, in the light of Rules1962 which are pari materia and verbatim same as the relevant rules now in force under Rules2012. The election petition had been dismissed by the court of Additional District Judge on account of nonjoinder as respondents all such candidates who had withdrawn their candidature on or before the date of withdrawal. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'bke High Court with the following observations:
"10. The definition of the word "candidate"
in R. 79 is for the purpose of PartIV, unless the context otherwise require. A "candidate" means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as candidate at any election. It is, thus, wide enough to cover all persons who enter the election arena by seeking nomination. It includes persons who are either validly nominated or in case their nominations are rejected, still claim to have been duly nominated. The word "election" has by long usage acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling, or Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 41 of 48 a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate, being declared elected. See "Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal: 1. Ele LR 133 (AIR 1952 SC 64). The word 'election' can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages. There is no warrant to give a limitation on this meaning because of the use of the expression "at the election" used in S. 15(3) of the Act.
11. ..... The definition contained in R. 79 of the Rules has similarly to be read in S. 15(3) to give it effect for obligation laid down therein. The context does require and as a matter of fact it is necessary to give full meaning to the word 'candidate' used in S. 15(3) as defined by R. 79.
X X X
14. Rule 91 of the Rules similarly lays down that if the provisions of S. 15 or R. 89 are not complied with, the Court shall dismiss the petition. The noncompliance of the provisions is made penal and hence has to be construed as mandatory.
15. Section 15(3) of the Act requires a petitioner to join as respondents to his petition all the candidates at the election. Under Rule 82(2) any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon an application made Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 42 of 48 by him to the court within fourteen days from the date fixed for the respondents to appear and subject to the provisions of R. 89, be entitled to be joined as respondent.
These provisions, and no other lay down the candidates who may be joined as respondents to an election petition. S. 15(3) obliges the petitioner to join as respondents all the candidates at the election, while under R. 82(2) any candidates not already as respondent may seek and when he applies, is entitled to be joined as a respondent. The parties to the election petition are statutorily named and are, the election petitioners and all the candidates at the election. The procedure of joining the respondents is also provided in the statute. The legislature has provided in R. 82(2) one mode of curing the defect or omission to join as respondent at the time of presenting the election petition. The petition would be bad and the defect fatal if not cured at the instance of a candidate in the manner and within the time prescribed. The power of addition of parties when exercised will fulfill the mandatory requirement of S. 15(3) as to the joining of the respondents. The existence of R. 82(2) does not suggest that S. 15(3) is directory. ......."
(Emphasis supplied) Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 43 of 48
74. The above view was followed by Hon'ble High Court in the recent case of Parveen Kumar (supra). It was observed that "mandatory" provisions of Section 15(2) DMC Act not having been adhered to (as three candidates who had withdrawn their candidature had not been joined as respondents), "the necessary consequence is that the election petition is liable to be dismissed". Taking the view that no purpose would be served in continuing with such a futile litigation and the parties cannot be relegated to a litigation which is fruitless, the election petition was ordered to be dismissed.
75.The objection raised by the respondents finds further strength from the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in election petition governed by the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 in case of Ram Partap Chandel (supra) with observations to the following effect.
"7. It will be seen that subsection (a) of Section 82 uses the words "contesting candidates" and subsection (b) uses the words "any other candidate". The combined effect of subsections (a) and (b) is, plainly, to require the impleadment in an election petition of all candidates at an election against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made. This would apply not only to those Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 44 of 48 who actually contested the election, but also to those who stood for election but withdrew their candidature before the polling date. The person being the same, it is of no consequence that the allegations of corrupt practice is made in relation to a point of time when the candidature had been withdrawn and the person was not acting as the agent of a contesting candidate.
X X X ...... a candidate who is duly nominated continues to be a candidate for the purpose of Section 82(b) in spite of his withdrawal and, if allegations of corrupt practice are made against him, he must be impleaded as a party to the election petition or the election petition must fail.
X X X ....... A respondent cannot by consent waive these provisions or condone them. Even inaction, laches or delay on the part of the respondent in pointing out the defect of non joinder cannot relieve the court of its statutory obligation of dismissing such an election petition. In our view, the observations in the case of Udhav Singh are wide enough to cover a situation where non impleadment is shown to be because of an advocate's default"
(emphasis supplied).
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 45 of 48
76. In the light of above position of law on the subject, I cannot agree with the submissions that the judgment in Dr. V. P. Dhingra (supra) is not binding.
77.For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary issues framed in election petition nos. 02/2012, 04/2012, 05/2012, and 06/2012 and preliminary issue no.4 framed in election petition no. 07/2012 are answered in affirmative against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. The effect is that these election petitions are rendered incurably defective and must be dismissed.
ISSUES OF LIMITATION & SECURITY DEPOSIT (in election petition no. 07/2012) :
78.Similar question regarding security deposit had arisen before Hon'ble High Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State Election Commission & ors. [ WP(C) No. 472/2008 decided on 13.09.2010]. After examining the provisions of Rules1970, which are identical to the corresponding provisions contained in Rules2012, as framed under DMC Act, Hon'ble High Court affirmed the view taken by the Additional District Judge that law does not give any discretion to the trial court to extend the time for making the payment of security amount after filing of Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 46 of 48 the election petition. It is necessary corrollary to the view thus taken that there is no discretion available even to enlarge the time for filing the election petition or, to put it conversely, to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
79.The reliance on the judgment in Jayanta Samal Vs. Kulamani Behera & anr. [(2004) 13 SCC 552] by the petitioner is misplaced as the view taken in the said case was in context of the law governing elections held under Orissa Gram Panchayat Act.
80.The election petition having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation and without deposit of the security amount, as requisite under Rule99 of Rules 2012, the issues no.1, 2 and 3 framed in this case are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
FINAL ORDER:
81. In the result, the election petition nos. 02/2012, 04/2012, 05/2012, 06/2012 and 07/2012 are liable to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
82.This judgment has been passed on the file of election petition no. 02/2012. The reader is directed to place an attested copy of Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 47 of 48 the judgment on the files of election petition nos. 04/2012, 05/2012, 06/2012 and 07/2012.
83. Files of the election petitions be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court today
on this 08th day of January, 2013.
(R.K. GAUBA)
District Judge (South),
Saket, New Delhi.
Election Petition Nos. 2/12, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12 & 7/12 48 of 48