S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE learned standing counsel representing the respondents who has put in appearance at this stage on advance notice has also been heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Election Tribunal dated 7.1.2003 whereby exercising the jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the petitioner was disqualified for a period of three years. In the order dated 7.1.2003 the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that inspite of notice the petitioner had not furnished any explanation. The fact that the petitioner had not submitted any explanation is not disputed. Further the correctness of the recitals contained in the order dated 7.1.2003 passed by the Election Commission is also not disputed. However, after passing of the order dated 7.1.2003, the petitioner moved an application under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act seeking removal of the disqualification imposed under order dated 7.1.2003. In this connection the petitioner has filed copies of the applications dated 6.2.2003, 25.7.2003 and 6.10.2003. In the application filed under Section 11 of the Act, which was supported by an affidavit, the petitioner had set forth his grievances in detail.
(3.) THE Election Commission after considering the applications rejected the same vide the impugned order dated 20th October, 2003. The only submission urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition is that the petitioner had not been afforded any personal hearing.;