Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(xxiii)Shrikrishna Vasudeo Datye Vs. Bhalchandra Anant Sawant passed by this Court at Principal Seat in EP/10/1978;

(xxiv) Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India [(2014) 14 SCC 189];

(xxv) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India [1991 AIR SCW 772];

(xxvi) Ganesh Ramchandra Naik Vs. Sitaram Bhoir and Ors.

[AIR 2000 Bombay 294];

(xxvii) Sathi Vijay Kumar Vs. Tota Singh [2007 AIR SCW 304];

20. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon, in rejoinder, submits that the partnership firm is already dissolved. The GST registration was also ( 21 ) EP-02-2025 cancelled on 09.01.2019. The election has taken place in 2024. There are no statements in the application that the firm is still in existence. Since the firm was not in existence, there was no reason to disclose this fact. About Sai Enterprises, everything is disclosed. It was necessary for the petitioner to make positive statement in the petition that the Nilkamal firm is in existence. Many things are now sought to be brought on record by way of amendment application.

57. In the case of Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India (supra), in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that keeping the column in the form blank makes it incomplete form and such nomination form is to be rejected by the Returning Officer. In the said case, the candidate failed to fill the blank even after being reminded of the same by the Returning Officer.

58. In the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India (supra), the election petition was filed challenging the validity of the order of Election Commission declaring polling at the polling station as void and directing re-polling at the said polling station. In a petition, the Election Commission of India was made a party respondent. The Election Commission filed an application for deletion of its name. It was held by the High Court that the Election Commission was neither necessary nor a proper party and directed to delete the name of Election Commission of India from the array of parties. The said order came to be ( 45 ) EP-02-2025 upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. By relying upon the said judgment, this Court has also decided the case, as used by this Court in the case of Ganesh Ramchandra Naik (supra), holding that merely because allegations are made against some persons is no reason to make them parties to the petition. It is further held that the Returning Officer and the Election Commission are also not necessary parties.