- (1.)Parties were heard on IA No. 2952/2014, an application filed by respondent No.5 under Section 81 (3) read with Section 86 of Representation of The People Act, 1951 (for brevity, the 'RP Act') for dismissing the petition, IA No. 2953/2014, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC read with Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for dismissing the election petition and IA No. 3224/2014, another application filed under Section 81(3) read with Section 86 of the RP Act.
(2.)The petitioner, a member of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), submitted his nomination to contest the State Legislative Assembly Election of 2013. The nomination form was submitted for Constituency No.11, Lahar district Bhind. The respondent No.5 also submitted his nomination form with requisite affidavit for contesting the election. The nomination form and affidavit of respondent No.5 was scrutinized by the officers of the Election Commission. The petitioner submitted his objection against the nomination form and affidavit of respondent No.5. The petitioner stated in his objection that respondent No.5 has not furnished full and correct informations and, therefore, his nomination form needs to be rejected. It is submitted that the returning officer has committed an error in not rejecting the form of respondent No.5. The petitioner's objection dated 9.11.2013 against the nomination form of respondent No.5 was rejected by returning officer by order dated 9.11.2013. In the assembly election, respondent No.5 was declared as elected.
(3.)Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who has filed these IAs, submits that there is no triable issue and cause of action in this matter and, therefore, election petition needs to be dismissed at this stage itself. He submits that the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No.5 on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No.5 is wrongly accepted. He submits that educational qualification, criminal antecedents/cases and assets/ properties are shown as per the requirement of law. By taking this Court to various provisions of the RP Act, it is submitted that the nomination form and affidavit of respondent No.5 is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. The election petition can be entertained only on the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the RP Act. There is no such ground available in the present matter and, therefore, the election petition be dismissed at the threshold.