- (1.) Bhomraj and Purnaram, registered electors of Kolayat Assembly Constituency No. 14 of Rajasthan, have filed this election petition against the returned candidate Shri Devisingh Bhati. The election was held on 5-3-85 in pursuance of the notification issued on 1-2-85 under sub-sec. (2) of S.15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act). As per the programme issued by the Election Commission of India under S. 30 of the Act, the following dates were appointed : (a) 8-2-85 (Friday) as the last date for making nomination; (b) 9-2-85 (Saturday) as the date for the scrutiny of nominations; (c) 11-2-85 (Monday) as the last date for withdrawal of the candidature; (d) 5-3-85 (Tuesday) as the date for the poll; (e) 9-3-85 (Saturday) as the date before which the election shall be completed. After rejection of two nomination papers, the following candidates remained in the field : - (1) Shri Devisingh Bhati (respondent), (2) Smt. Kanta Khaturia, (3) Shri Asharam Gehlot, (4) Shri Ganeshram, (5) Shri Deen Dayal. After counting, the respondent Devisingh was declared elected, The petitioners have challenged the election of the respondent on the following grounds :- (1) The nomination, paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was improperly rejected. He had delivered his nomination paper on 8-2-85 along with the certified copy of the electoral roll of Bikaner Assembly Constituency, in which, his age was mentioned as 30 years. Copy of the electoral roll was the part of the nomination paper. The rejection of his nomination paper is alleged to be improper because his name was once shown in the list of validly nominated candidates. The date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers was 9-2-85 and the date for withdrawal of the same was 11-2-85, therefore, the returning officer was not competent to reject the nomination paper on 11-2-85. His nomination paper also could not be rejected when he had submitted the certified copy of the entry of the electoral roll showing his age as 30 years, and that certified copy was a part of the nomination paper. (2) The District Election Officer, Bikaner established additional polling stations for the electors of seven villages namely : (1) Chila Kashmir, (2) Gulam-Wala, (3) Kandharli, (4) Nokha urf Daiya, (5) Lakhasar, (6) Bichwal and (7) Panwarwala by his order dt. 19-2-85 purported to have been issued with the consent of the Election Commission. The establishment of these additional polling stations was illegal, being in violation of R.49 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. No notification as envisaged by rules was published 15 days before the date of poll. The non- compliance of the rule has materially affected the result of the election. (3) Smt. Kanta Khaturia was a formidable candidate of Congress- I. In order to jeopardise the chances of her victory, false and highly defamatory statements affecting her personal character and conduct were published in the form of a pamphlet as well as in the weekly paper 'Kranti Bigul', on the night, intervening 4/5-3-85. The author of the said pamphlet is Shri Onkarsingh Rajput r/o Bikaner Mohalla Chotina Kua. He is an active member of 'Janta Party' for the last several years and had actively campaigned for the respondent. Shri Mohan Sharma, the Editor of 'Kranti Bigul' actively supported and campaigned for the respondent. Copies of the pamphlet and of the paper 'Kranti Bigul' were widely distributed and published in the entire constituency on the night intervening 4/5-3-85 as well as while the polling was in progress and particularly near the polling stations to the voters. Their publication was done by the respondent himself, his election agent Shri Davendrasingh as well as by his agents/ workers with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. The petitioners submitted a schedule annexed to the petition giving the instances of the publication and full particulars relating to the time, date, place and persons responsible for the distribution as well as the persons to Whom the same were distributed. The said pamphlet and the said paper contained defamatory statements which were false and were believed to be false by the respondent and his election agent and other agents and workers of the respondent and which were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of Smt. Kanta Khaturia and the aforesaid statements were reasonable calculated to prejudice the prospects of her election.
(2.) It was prayed that the petition may be accepted and the election of the respondent may be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Reply to the election petition was filed by the respondent. The grounds of challenge of the respondent's election were traversed It was alleged that the respondent, his election agent Shri Davendrasingh and his agents or workers did not commit any corrupt practice with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agents. The allegations of the petitioners in this regard are absolutely wrong, unfounded and without any basis.;