- (1.) An election, to choose one member to the Jharkhand legislative assembly from 23, Ramgarh Assembly Constituency, was held in the month of January-February 2001 to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of the then sitting member. Though there were more than two candidates in the election fray, the legal battle in the Court arena has continued only between the appellant and the respondent, the two out of the several candidates, in the backdrop of the controversy arising for decision. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by the returning officer. He could not participate in the elecions. The respondent was declared elected on 23-2-2001. An election petition, laying challenge to the election of the respondent and seeking setting aside of his election, was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The facts relevant for the purpose of appreciating the issues arising for decision in this appeal, are briefly set out hereunder.
(2.) As per the election programme notified by the Election Commission of India, the nomination papers could be filed on January 25,2001 through January 31, 2001 between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. before the returning officer who was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ramgarh. The scrutiny of the nominations took place on February 1, 2001. February 3, 2001 was the date for withdrawal of nomination, if any. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by reference to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) for failure of the appellant to furnish certain information in a prescribed pro forma supported by an affidavit, stating as to whether the petitioner was not disqualified to contest the election due to any conviction for committing any offence as required under Section 8 of the Act. The prescribed pro forma for furnishing the information and the form of affidavit, though supplied to the petitioner by the returning officer, were not filed up to the date and time appointed for scrutiny of nominations. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the controversy stands resolved by a recent decision of this Court in Shaligram Shrivastava v. Naresh Singh Patel (2003) 2 SCC 176 . The appellant appearing in person has very fairly stated that he does not want to pursue any further this plea, disputing the rejection of his nomination paper, in view of the abovesaid decision of this Court.
(3.) The next controversy, and now the only one surviving for decision, is as to whether the nomination paper filed by the respondent suffered from any defect of a substantial character inasmuch as this issue has been highlighted by the appellant from very many angles it would be useful to reproduce and set out from the averments made in the election petition itself as to what the appellant's case is. According to the appellant- "The returning officer ought to have rejected the nomination papers of the respondent on the following grounds :- (a) That the respondent's name is 'Babulal'. His surname is Marandi. He is known, recognized, addressed and identified everywhere by this name 'Babulal Marandi' alone and not by any other name or surname whatsoever. The name of the respondent Babu Lal Marandi has not been enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of any Assembly constituency of Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand State. He has not filed certified copy of any Assembly Constituency of Jharkhand Legislature to the Returning Officer either at the time of filing his nomination papers or at the time of scrutiny showing therein that his name 'Babu Lal Marandi' has been registered as an elector in that Assembly Constituency. Thus, the respondent is not competent to contest the said election. His nomination papers filed to the returning officer suffer from a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the R. P. Act, 1951 and they ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer";