- (1.) This order shall dispose of an application preferred by the respondent returned candidate as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed are that the petitioner, an elector, being aggrieved by the election of the respondent No.1, as a Member Parliament from 18 (Rajasthan) Jalore Parliamentary Constituency in general election, 2009, presented an election petition alleging improper acceptance of nomination, that materially effected result of the election.
(3.) As per the election petitioner, the nomination papers filed by the respondent No.1 though having certain omissions and defects of substantial nature were accepted improperly by the Returning Officer. The defects and omissions so pointed out are as follows:- (a). That column marked (ii) in Part III A (Bhag 3ka-in Hindi) in all the aforesaid four nomination papers was left blank, which is to the following effect :- Whether the candidate has been convicted for any other offence(s) for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The above omission and non-disclosure by the respondent No.1 amounted to the serious and material non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 33 (1) of the RP Act, 1951 and also amounted to a defect of substantial character within the scope and ambit of Section 36 (4) of the RP Act, 1951. (b). Para 1 of the affidavit to be filed in terms of the order of the Election Commission of India bearing No.3/ER/2003/JS-II dated 27.3.2003 (Annexure-I to the nomination paper) was totally scored out thereby refusing to give the information detailed therein. The above affidavit was required to be filed in terms of Section 33 A of the RP Act, 1951. Further, as per para 19.2 of Chapter V of the Handbook of Returning Officers published by the Election Commission clearly laid down that no column of the affidavit should be left blank or filled by just tick/dash marking. If the information asked for in a column is nil or not applicable to the particular candidate, then he should write 'NIL' or 'Not applicable' in that column. Accordingly, the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 was patently defective and untenable affidavit and resulted into serious non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 33 A of the RP Act, 1951 and the above instructions of the Election Commission and therefore amounted to a defect of substantial character within the scope and ambit of Section 36 (4) of the RP Act, 1951. ;