Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In his counter affidavit, the respondent No.1 has denied the allegation that he has taken any undue advantage of the electorate and submitted that he had not graduated from Sikkim University but from EIILM University, Sikkim and due to an ―inadvertent typographical error‖, the name of the former University had been mentioned in his affidavit. A similar submission has been made by the respondent No.1 in paras 6(b)(v) and 7 of the counter affidavit.

5. Referring to the averments made by the respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit, as noted above and claiming that he has admitted to furnishing incorrect information with regard to his educational qualification in the statutory affidavit required to be filed alongwith his nomination papers, the petitioner has filed the present application stating inter alia that the said nomination paper was liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer, for the reason that it is not in compliance with Sections 33 and 33A of the R.P. Act and was improperly accepted. In this background, the petitioner prays that a judgment on admission be passed on the basis of admissions made by the respondent No.1 and his election be set aside as null and void.

(iii) Nand Kishore Garg vs. Jitender Singh Tomar and Ors. in EL.PET.2/2015 decided on 21.09.2016.

(MANU/DE/3474/2016).

7. A reply in opposition to the present application has been filed by the respondent No.1, who has sought to clarify in the preliminary submissions that he had obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from EIILM University, Sikkim; that the mark-sheets for three years have already been filed alongwith the documents in the main proceedings; that the use of the words, ―Sikkim University‖ instead of the words ―EIILM University, Sikkim‖ is a typographical error and not a deliberate act on his part to win the elections on a false premise, as alleged. Respondent No.1 further states that the said mistake is not of any material consequence as both the Universities are duly recognized by the government. He has gone on to deny the allegation that the explanation offered by him in his counter affidavit should be construed as an admission of facts, as contemplated under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Respondent No.1 has averred that even otherwise, being a graduate is not a pre-requisite to stand for the election in question. Thus, respondent No.1 has refuted the allegation that he has made a deliberate attempt to furnish false/incorrect information with regard to his educational status or that the said act tantamounts to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the R.P. Act. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied on the following decisions:-

9. It can be seen from the facts narrated above that there is no dispute that the respondent No.1 did not disclose the correct status of his educational qualification in the statutory affidavit filed along with his nomination form. The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether failure on the part of the respondent No.1 to have disclosed the fact that he is a Bachelor of Arts from EIILM University, Sikkim would amount to a non-disclosure of such a nature as would render his nomination invalid and void. For examining whether there was a substantial compliance by the respondent No.1 in the form of information given by him or whether the incorrect information furnished by him would be akin to non-disclosure of material information warranting rejection of his nomination, it is considered necessary to examine the legal position as emerges from the scheme of the R.P. Act, Rules, orders and the judicial precedents.

35. The highest qualification disclosed by the respondent No.1 herein is not under challenge because it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 does not possess a graduation degree or that the year of completing the Degree course as disclosed, is incorrect. In fact the respondent No.1 has filed copies of his mark sheets issued by EIILM, University, Sikkim for all three years. The petitioner has also not disputed the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that both the Universities, namely, EIILM University, Sikkim and Sikkim University are duly recognized by the Government. The challenge laid in the petition is to the incorrect disclosure of the University from where respondent No.1 had actually graduated.