- (1.) This appeal under Section I 16-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 18/5/19899 of the High court of Rajasthan, Jaipur bench by which the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Tijara Constituencyhas been set aside on the ground that the appellant committed the corrupt practice under Section 123 (4 of the Act.
(2.) The poll was held on 5/3/1985. Six candidates, including the appellant, Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan, respondent in the appeal herein, and one Maya Ram had filed their nomination papers. The appellant was candidate of the Congress Party whereas the respondent was the candidate of Lok Dal. The nomination paper of Maya Ram was rejected by the Returning Officer during the course of scrutiny. Five candidates contested the election. The total number of valid votes polled was 70,802. The appellant received 37,481 votes whereas the respondent received 29,982 votes. On 6/3/1985 the appellant was declared elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Tijara Constituency.
(3.) Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan filed election petition on 9/4/1985 challenging the election of the appellant on the following grounds: (I) The nomination paper of Maya Ram was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100 (1 (c) of the Act. (ii) On the date of the election the respondent was not qualified under the Constitution and/or the Act to be chosen to fill the seat, inasmuch as he had not made and subscribed oath or affirmation in the manner as prescribed under Article 173 (a) of the Constitution and the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100 (1 (a) of the Act. (iii) The nomination of the respondent was liable to be rejected on the ground that on the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination, he was not qualified for being chosen to fill the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution. (iv) The respondent is guilty of corrupt practice as defined in sub- S. (3 and (4 of Section 123 of the Act and his election is liable to be set aside under Section 100 (1 (b) of the Act. The appellant contested the election petition by denying all the allegations. He specifically denied having committed any corrupt practice or consented to the commission of any corrupt practice as defined under the Act. With regard to the rejection of nomination paper of Maya Ram, the case of the appellant was that the said nomination paper was rightly rejected. The appellant further raised an objection that the respondent-petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 81 of the Act inasmuch as the election petition was not accompanied with the requisite number of copies and that the copy of the election petition supplied to the appellant was not a true and correct copy. The respondent also contended that the allegations of corrupt practices were too vague and lacking in material facts as required under Section 83 of the Act and as such the paragraphs containing the said allegations were liable to be struck off.;