Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3) That, it is not at all true that this notice voluntarily has given ujp membership of this political party; nor I this noticee have incurred any disqualification as defined u/s 58 of this Act.

4)That, obtaining a party ticket and contesting election for Legislative Assembly, on the part of this notice, subsequent to his winning membership of Municipal Council at Kailashahar by contesting election, was merely a formality as he had been since long before his contesting election of Municipal Council, working for the party having attachment to this party. Had it not been the fact, the party(BJP) must not have permitted party ticket to this notice at the subsequent MLA election . It was /is no illegally to contest any election as against a candidate of the party as an independent candidate, without forfeiting his attachment with the party, particularly when the party did not / does not raise any contention against such contesting candidate.

Law Department on the issue. Note dated 21.01.2020 of the Law Secretary has also been annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents as Annexure-R/10. The relevant extract of the said note of the Law Secretary is as under:

"........Examined the matter meticulously.
The challenge is to the notice receiver's remaining as a member of Municipal Council even after contesting Assembly Election in 2018 by joining BJP party for which disqualification of Shri De is sought under sub-section (2) of Section 59A of Tripura Municipal Act, 199. It appears from the reply of Shri De supported by a copy of his joining letter dated 14.7.2014 showing his joining the BJP party that while shri De was a member of BJP party, he fought and won municipal council election as an independent candidate, though later he contested Assembly Election on the nomination by his party i.e. BJP. Thus, it is clear that he did not join any political party for contesting Assembly election while he was a Municipal Councilor(independent). This could be an internal arrangement of his party for which none else may be aggrieved.
[50] Respondent No.04, the competent authority, decided the controversy with regard to the disqualification of Respondent No.06 by his order dated 29.01.2020, Annexure-3, in the same line and declared that Respondent No. 06 incurred no disqualification which is under challenge before us.
[51] It is not disputed that Respondent No.06 contested the Municipal Election in 2015 as an independent candidate against the candidates set up by BJP and other political parties and subsequently, he contested the State Assembly Election in 2018 as a BJP candidate. Thus, whether he formally resigned or not, by his conduct, Respondent No.06 ceased to be a member of BJP. In fact, as an independent candidate, he had defeated the candidate supported by his erstwhile party. Subsequently when he contested the assembly election as a BJP candidate, he must be seen to have rejoined the said party.

[53] In the case in hand, admittedly Respondent No.06 during the continuation of his membership in the Municipal Council as an independent candidate contested the State Assembly Election in 2018 from 53 Kailashahar Constituent Assembly as a candidate set up by BJP. There is therefore, no doubt that Respondent No.06 who was elected to the Municipal Council as an independent candidate formally joined a political party so as to incur disqualification under sub-section (2) of Section 59A of the Act and as per the test laid down by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh's case (supra).