- (1.) The above two election petitions pertain to the validity of the election to the 82-Hathin Assembly Constituency to the Haryana Legislative Assembly. Election Petition No.4 of 2009 has been filed at the instance of a candidate, whose nomination paper had been rejected and hence, it is contended that the election process was vitiated. Election Petition No.8 of 2009 is at the instance of an elector in the Constituency, who as a voter in the Constituency claims to be aggrieved about the wrongful rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in Election Petition No.4 of 2009 and seeks for similar relief for setting aside of the electoral results declaring the respondent-Jaleb Khan as a successful candidate. Since both the election petitions pertain to the electoral results of the same candidate, on a joint request made by counsel on both sides, they were ordered to be clubbed together by an order of this Court on 19.08.2010. The Court has recorded that the counsel for both sides in the petitions have agreed that evidence could be recorded in one case namely in Election Petition No.4 of 2009 and it would be treated as evidence in Election Petition No.8 of 2009 as well. Now, to the facts in detail as set out in the petition and the written statement of the respondent in both the cases.
(2.) The averments in the Election Petition No.4 of 2009 are as follows: The Election Commission of India issued a schedule for holding elections in the State of Haryana. The detailed programme published was as under:- JUDGEMENT_548_LAWS(P&H)2_2012_1.html
(3.) The petitioner would claim that no defects were pointed out at the time when the papers were received and the Returning Officer made the petitioner to subscribe to oath and advised him to come next day on 26.09.2009 at 3 P.M. to get (election) symbol. On 26.09.2009, the petitioner had reached the office of SDM/Returning Officer where the scrutiny was taking place. The petitioner had been told that candidates/agents of recognized political parties were advised to come in and file their objections against nomination papers of any candidate and that others (including the petitioner)had been made to wait outside and were advised that they could come in, if the need arose. When the nomination papers were being scrutinized, the petitioner had been waiting for his turn to be called but at 2.30 PM, number of persons had come out of office of SDM/Returning Officer and they were saying Najazkat ke paper reject ho gaye (Nazakat, the petitioner).;