KISAN SHANKAR KATHORE Vs. ARUN DATTATRAY SAWANT
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
May 09,2014
Kisan Shankar Kathore
Appellant
VERSUS
Arun Dattatray Sawant
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AZHAR HUSSAIN V. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]UNION OF INDIA VS. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS [REFERRED TO]
SHALIGRAM SHRIVASTAVA VS. NARESH SINGH PATEL [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
G.M. SIDDESHWAR VS. PRASANNA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RESURGENCE INDIA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHIV BALLAM YADAV, SON OF SRI DEONANDAN YADAV @ RAM SWAROOP YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-67] [REFERRED TO]VEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY VS. YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2023-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
RANGNATH MISHRA VS. RAMESH CHAND [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-321] [REFERRED TO]
PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH VS. MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG SON OF SAHI RAM, BY CASTE AHEER, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANPURA GRAM PANCHAYAT AND POST KALA KHARI, TEHSIL BUHANA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU VS. SHIV RAM ALIAS SHEO RAM SON OF SHRI SULTAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAGA, POST KALA KHARI, TEHSIL BUHANA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
D. K. ARUNA VS. BANDLA KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
DASANGLU PUL VS. LUPALUM KRI [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR KUSHWAHA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2017-11-281] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY JAGANNATHRAO JADHAV VS. KALE VIKRAM VASACNTRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAJEET @ NANA SHIVAJIRAO KADAM VS. RAJESH VINAYAK KSHIRSAGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH MAHADEORAO UKE VS. DEVENDRA GANGADHAR FADNAVIS AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-301] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY RAI AND ANOTHER VS. SHRI NARENDRA MODI [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SUBRAT TARAI & OTHERS VS. SRI JAGABANDHU BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
BEDANTI TIWARI VS. BHAIYALAL RAJWADE AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY VS. VEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. MAHENDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-209] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA VS. MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
A. MEENAKSHI CHANDELA A. VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH KUMAR SOJATIA VS. DEVILAL DHAKAD [LAWS(MPH)-2023-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIDHAR PATEL VS. ABHAY DARE [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-146] [REFERRED TO]
NINGTHOUJAM MANGI VS. SANASAM BIRA SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUNATH SINGH VS. SHRI JANARDAN SINGH SIGRIWAL [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-201] [REFERRED TO]
MANENDRA NATH RAI VS. RETURNING OFFICER 173 LUCKNOW PURVI VIDHAN SABHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-98] [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL SUKABHAI MENAT VS. DAMOR RUPSIBAI SUKABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
BALARAM DATTATRAY PATIL VS. PRASHANT RAM THAKUR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-196] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NAFIS VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-185] [REFERRED TO]
NIKKI DEVI VS. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(PAT)-2019-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RANG VS. STATE OF U.P THRU PRIN SECY PANCHAYAT RAJ LKO & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-120] [REFERRED TO]
KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA VS. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2023-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2016-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY BRIJKISHORILAL NIRUPAM VS. GOPAL CHINAYYA SHETTY & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-196] [REFERRED TO]
V.R. SOJI S/O RAGHAVAN VS. VEENA GEORGE MEMBER OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, ARANMULA CONSTITUENCY, VELASERI, PALAMUTTATHU, MYLAPARA AND OTHER [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-191] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN DAWAR VS. SMT.RANJANA BAGHEL [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
BAZIL DSOUZA VS. ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-410] [REFERRED TO]
KARIKHO KRI VS. NUNEY TAYANG [LAWS(SC)-2024-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
SRI MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ @ PRITHVIRAJ SINGH VS. SHRI PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SULBHA SINSINWAR VS. SMT. BEENA JAT AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-463] [REFERRED TO]
AHIR MERAMANBHAI MARAKHIBHAI VS. PABUBHA VIRAMABHA MANEK [LAWS(GJH)-2019-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH RATHORE VS. T.RAIA SINOH [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKAR JAIN VS. ELECTION COMMISION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
MOPURAGUNDU THIPPESWAMY VS. K.ERANNA [LAWS(APH)-2018-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAZIEZOKHO NISA AND ORS. VS. T.R. ZELIANG AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2016-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH VS. OKRAM HENRY SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH VS. MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR VS. KUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH TANWAR VS. SURENDER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI VS. SAKET GOKHALE [LAWS(DLH)-2021-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
G. NAGAIAH VS. RETURNING OFFICER [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
KU. KA. SELVAM VS. R. SELVAM AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-498] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPINDER SINGH DHILLON VS. NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
HOULIM SHOKHOPAO MATE VS. LORHO S. PFOZE [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH KUMAR SOJATIA VS. DEVILAL DHAKAD [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
NUNEY TAYANG VS. KARIKHO KRI [LAWS(GAU)-2023-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK RAJARAM RAUL VS. MANDAR PRAMOD VICHARE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
BEENA W/O JITENDRA SINGH VS. SNEHLATA W/O BHEEM SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-255] [REFERRED TO]
V R SOJI VS. VEENA GEORGE [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-152] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant herein was the successful candidate in the election of legislative assembly, which he contested from 56, Ambernath Constituency, Thane District, Maharashtra. There were five candidates in the fray for which the elections were held on October 13, 2004 and the results were declared on October 16, 2004. After he was declared elected, his election was challenged by the first respondent, who is a voter in the said constituency. He filed the election petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay stating that the appellant's nomination had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the election was void due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Rules and Orders framed under the said Act.
(2.)The election petition was filed under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act on the ground that in the nomination form filled in by the appellant he had suppressed his dues payable to the Government, suppressed the assets of his spouse and also suppressed the information and assets of a partnership firm of which he is a partner. The appellant contested the said petition. Evidence was led. After hearing the arguments, the High Court passed judgment dated August 16, 2007 accepting the plea of the first respondent that the nomination form of the appellant was defective and should not have been accepted by the Returning Officer. Thus, while allowing the election petition and setting aside of the election of the appellant, the High Court recorded the non-disclosure on following counts:
a) Non-disclosure of dues to Maharashtra State Electricity Board in respect of two service connections held by him amounting to Rs.79,200/- and Rs.66,250/-.
b) The appellant failed to disclose the ownership of Bungalow No. 866 and the taxes dues thereof amounting to Rs.3,445/- owned by his wife.
c) The appellant failed to disclose the particulars of the vehicle MH-05-AC-55 owned by the wife.
d) The appellant is guilty of non-disclosure of property owned by firm Padmavati Developers of which the appellant is a partner, which owns two plots of lands measuring 1313 sq.mtrs. and 1292 sq.mts. in Survey No. 48, Hissa No. 9 of Mouze Kalyan, Taluka Ambarnath, District Thane, Maharashtra.
Challenging the impugned judgment, the present statutory appeal is filed, as provided under Section 116A of the Act.
(3.)We may state, at the outset, that there is no dispute on facts, namely, the appellant had not disclosed certain informations, as found by the High Court and noted above, in his nomination form. Entire dispute rests on the issue as to whether it was incumbent upon the appellant to have disclosed such an information and non- disclosure thereof rendered his nomination invalid and void. The nature of information given by the appellant in his nomination form, on the basis of which the appellant contends that it ought to have been treated as substantial compliance, would be taken note of later at the appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to state the legal position contained in the Act, Rules and Orders as well as the judgments of this Court in order to understand as to whether there was a substantial compliance by the appellant in the form of information given by him or it amounted to non-disclosure of the material information warranting rejection of his nomination.
(2.)The election petition was filed under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act on the ground that in the nomination form filled in by the appellant he had suppressed his dues payable to the Government, suppressed the assets of his spouse and also suppressed the information and assets of a partnership firm of which he is a partner. The appellant contested the said petition. Evidence was led. After hearing the arguments, the High Court passed judgment dated August 16, 2007 accepting the plea of the first respondent that the nomination form of the appellant was defective and should not have been accepted by the Returning Officer. Thus, while allowing the election petition and setting aside of the election of the appellant, the High Court recorded the non-disclosure on following counts:
a) Non-disclosure of dues to Maharashtra State Electricity Board in respect of two service connections held by him amounting to Rs.79,200/- and Rs.66,250/-.
b) The appellant failed to disclose the ownership of Bungalow No. 866 and the taxes dues thereof amounting to Rs.3,445/- owned by his wife.
c) The appellant failed to disclose the particulars of the vehicle MH-05-AC-55 owned by the wife.
d) The appellant is guilty of non-disclosure of property owned by firm Padmavati Developers of which the appellant is a partner, which owns two plots of lands measuring 1313 sq.mtrs. and 1292 sq.mts. in Survey No. 48, Hissa No. 9 of Mouze Kalyan, Taluka Ambarnath, District Thane, Maharashtra.
Challenging the impugned judgment, the present statutory appeal is filed, as provided under Section 116A of the Act.
(3.)We may state, at the outset, that there is no dispute on facts, namely, the appellant had not disclosed certain informations, as found by the High Court and noted above, in his nomination form. Entire dispute rests on the issue as to whether it was incumbent upon the appellant to have disclosed such an information and non- disclosure thereof rendered his nomination invalid and void. The nature of information given by the appellant in his nomination form, on the basis of which the appellant contends that it ought to have been treated as substantial compliance, would be taken note of later at the appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to state the legal position contained in the Act, Rules and Orders as well as the judgments of this Court in order to understand as to whether there was a substantial compliance by the appellant in the form of information given by him or it amounted to non-disclosure of the material information warranting rejection of his nomination.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.