Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.The petitioner submits that the election petition is presented under Section 81 of the Act R.P. Act 1951 on the grounds specified under Section 100 (1)(a),(c), (d) (i) and (iv) thereunder, questioning the validity of the election of opposite party no. 3, who has got himself illegally elected by blatant breach of the limitations in Article 173 of the Constitution and of the provisions of Section 5 (c), 32, 33(1), 36(2)(a) and (b), 29-A(7) and 169 (1) of the R.P. Act as well as by flagrant breach of the definition clause of the R.P. Act defining the words and expressions (i) Political Party (ii) Candidate (iii) Electoral Right. He submits that it is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Chapter 3 of the Constitution specially Articles 13 (2), 14, 19 (1) (a), 19(1) (c), 19 (4) and 21 of the Constitution. According to him, the petitioner being an elector in U.P. as defined under section 2 (1) (e) of the R. P. Act, is qualified for membership of the U.P. Legislative Assembly under Section 5 (c) thereunder and, he possessed the electoral right as defined under Section 79 (d) thereunder, which inter alia, includes the right to stand for being a candidate. He read out the definition of persons mentioned in section 2 (g) of R. P. Act, 1950 which prescribed "person does not include the body of person", which is applicable to R.P. Act, 1951 vide its section 2(1) (a).

ii.Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi; 2001 (8) SCC 233;
iii.Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosh; 1982 (1) SCC 691; and iv.D. Ramchandran v. R. V. Janki Raman; 2004 (7) SCC 181

5.At the cost of repetition, he also submits that the election in question has been conducted in gross violation of the definition clause of R.P. Act i.e. Sections 2(1) (a), 79 (b) and (d) of the R.P. Act, defining the word "political party", candidates and electoral right and Section 2(g) of R.P. Act, 1950 defining the word 'Person" applicable to the R.P. Act vide its Section 2(1) (a) and the provisions of Sections 29-A (7), 5 (c) , 32, 33 (1) and 7 (b), 36 (2) (a) and (b) and (7) and Section 169 (1); and of Rule 4 of Rules, 1961 and in that, it has violated the provisions of Articles 173, 324 (1) and 327 and also, it has violated the fundamental rights under Articles 13 (2) , 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (C) , 19 (4) and 21 of the Constitution.

6.He also submits that the petitioner's Constitutional right under Article 173 qualifying him for being chosen to fill a seat in the State Legislative Assembly (read with Section 5 of the R.P. Act describing other qualification) and he has statutory right under section 32 of the R.P. Act entitling him to be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat [(read with his electoral rights under section 79 (d)] thereunder giving him the right, inter alia, to stand for being a candidate including his fundamental rights under Articles 13 (2), 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1)(c), 19 (4) and 21 have been taken away or abridged by the Nomination FORM 2B in Rule 4 of the Rules 1961, which has been made in violation of the express limitation under section 169 (1) of the R.P. Act, and more so, when Section 29-A(7) thereunder also, has laid down a limitation that registration of the political party shall be only for the purpose of its PART -IV A and not for the other PARTS of the R.P. Act. Further, Section 2 (1) (f) thereunder defines the word "Political Party" which applies to all the provisions as decided in the landmark election case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC-2299 (para 218). Hence,the words "Political Party" and "Candidate" are not open to opposite party no.1 for Rule-Making for the purpose of the R.P. Act.

7.He further argued by mentioning that the election in question was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the R.P. Act and hence, it is void under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the R.P. Act. The opposite party no. 3 was wrongly elected as a delegate/agent of an association or a body of persons and such a person is not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution, and Section 5 (c) of the R.P. Act. According to him, an agent/delegate of an association or a body of person is not entitled to be nominated as Candidate for election to fill this seat under Section 32 and 33 (1) of the R.P. Act. Hence, the acceptance of his nomination being improper, his election is void under section 100 (1) (d) (i) and (iv) of the R.P. Act. He further submits that the citizens associations formed and governed under Article 19 (1) (c) and registered under Section 29-A (7) of the R.P. Act and defined under its Section 2 (1)(f) as Political Party has unreasonably been restricted by changing their structure into (I) the recognized National Party; (ii) recognized State Party; and (iii) registered unrecognized party, which violate clause (4) of Article 19 and such classified parties without having the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a), have been permitted to exercise civic right by way of setting up for the election to its own delegates by means of the Nomination i.e. FORM 2-B, Annexure - 5 giving undue electoral advantage to opposite party no. 3 to get elected by breach of Article 19 (1) (a) inter alia. Hence, the election of the returned candidate is void under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the R.P. Act. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal in Civil Appeal No.6128 of 2008 decided on 18.09.2009. Lastly, he made a request that the election of the returned candidate, the opposite party no. 3, be declared to be void under Section 98 (b) of the R.P. Act.