Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. On filing the Election Petitions, defects were noted by the Registry and except one defect, all are typical in nature. The additional defect is in Election Petition No.4 of 2019, noting that the prayer made by the petitioner is incomplete. The Election Petitions were posted before the Court without numbering them in view of the defects noted, and the Registry was directed to number the Election Petitions as per the order dated 29.07.2019, subject to the condition that petitioner shall address on the issue with respect to the curability of the defects. Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents, viz., the Chief Election Commissioner of India, Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala, Returning Officer, Wayanad Constituency, Returning Officer, Ernakulam Constituency, Returning Officer, Amethi Constituency in Uttar Pradesh and the returned candidates. The Returning Officer, Amethi Constituency is included in the party array, assigning the reason that the nomination submitted by the petitioner in the Amethi Constituency was accepted in spite of the conviction of the petitioner in the afore-quoted cases.

"(3) A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years (other than any offence referred to in sub-

section (1) or sub-section (2)) shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release."

31. As per the Annexures-P4 and P3 respectively produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the sentence alone are suspended by the appellate/revisional courts. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has a case that her nomination was accepted in the Amethi constituency in the State of Uttar Pradesh and she contested the election and has secured nearly 600 votes, and therefore, the rejection of the nominations by the Returning Officers of Wayanad Parliamentary Constituency and Ernakulam Parliamentary Constituency are not correct. In my considered opinion, the acceptance of a nomination by the Returning Officer at Amethi is not a binding factor on this Court to consider the election petitions filed by the petitioner before this Court. Moreover, a mistake committed by the Returning Officer cannot be taken into account for the purpose of analysing the situations projected by the petitioner in the election petitions in question, nor it is a binding precedent on this Court.

37. It is also equally important and significant to note, even going by the admission made by the petitioner, petitioner has submitted nominations to three Constituencies, i.e., Wayanad and Ernakulam in the State of Kerala and Amethi in the State of Uttar Pradesh, against the prohibition contained under Sec.33(7)(a) of Act, 1951, which read thus:

"(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or in any other provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election,--

ANNEXURE P9 TYPED COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF NOMINATION PAPER ALONG WITH COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.4.2019 ISSUED BY RETURNING OFFICER 37-AMETHI LOK SABHA CONSTITUENCY.

ANNEXURE P10 COPY OF THE LIST OF APPROVED CONTESTING CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION TO THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE 37-AMETHI CONSTITUENCY, PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRA ORDINARY.