Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

68. This allegation appears to have been countered by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 by showing that in his affidavit in Form- 26 (pp.138), the respondent no. 1 had disclosed about the outstanding liability in respect of the said bank account to the extent of Rs.1,36,50,000/-.

69. However, whether or not there has been a false declaration has to be determined in the election petition.

In the matter of outstanding liability of provident fund:

70. In respect of provident funds dues allegedly payable by the respondent no.1 in respect of M/s. Allied Concern, the firm of the respondent no. 1 is concerned, pleadings have been made in paragraphs 9(D), 15, 16 and 26 of the election petition. As per (a) the affidavit filed in support of the election petition, (b) verification, and (c) affidavit under Rule 94-A of 1961 Rules, the said statements are affirmed/ verified as under:-

73. In this case, the respondent no. 1 has not filed the written statement due to pendency of this interlocutory application. Therefore, on record the respondent no. 1 has not taken any defence regarding dispute, if any, in respect of provident fund dues. Therefore, this issue would be subject to determination in the trial of the election petition.

Whether the lack of pleading in the election petition that how and in what manner the result of the election was materially affected:

74. By relying on para-26 of the case of Mairembam Prithviraj (supra), the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that there is no requirement to prove that the result of the election of the returned candidate is materially affected once his nomination is declared to have been improperly accepted. It may be mentioned that in the said case, two candidates had filed their nomination in respect of Moirang Assembly Constituency for being elected to 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly. The respondent had objected to the nomination of the appellant at the time of scrutiny of nominations on the ground that false declaration relating to educational qualification was made by the appellant. The Returning Officer directed the appellant to submit documents in proof of his educational qualification as declared in the affidavit filed under Form 26. The appellant failed to produce any document as proof of his educational qualification in spite of which the Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the appellant. The appellant Page No.# 47/52 secured 14,521 votes and the respondent secured 13,363 votes and the appellant was declared elected from Moirang Assembly Constituency. The election was challenged by filing election petition. The appellant denied the allegation of false declaration and according to the appellant, the declaration made by him that he had passed Master of Business Administration (MBA) in the year 2004 from Mysore University was a clerical error. The respondent abandoned the allegation of corrupt practices and other electoral malpractices during trial. The High Court concluded that the declaration made by the Appellant in Form 26 about his educational qualification as MBA from Mysore University was false. The plea of the Appellant that the defect in Form 26 was due to a clerical error was rejected. The contention of the Appellant that providing wrong information about the educational qualification was not a defect of substantial character was also rejected. The Appellant contended that the Respondent failed to plead and prove that the result was 'materially affected' as required under Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act. The High Court did not accept the said contention on the ground that there were only two candidates in the fray in which case it was not necessary to prove that the result of election of the returned candidate was materially affected. The High Court further held if it is found that the Appellant's nomination was improperly accepted, the result of his election stood automatically affected materially. The High Court on the basis of the above reasons declared the election of the Appellant as void. The judgment of the High Court was assailed by the Appellant before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India observed and held as under:-