- (1.) The petitioner, a sitting M.L.A. of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, has filed the present election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short "R.P. Act") assailing the election of respondent no.1- Sri Pradeep Balmuchu and respondent no. 2-Sri Sanjeev Kumar of Rajya Sabha held on 3.5.2012 on three grounds: (i) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not submitted any document as required by Section 39 (2)(c) of the R.P. Act to prove that their names are included in the electoral roll of any Parliamentary Constituency, therefore, their nomination papers ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer. (ii)(a) Sri Pradeep Balmuchu-respondent no. 1 has filed his nomination on 23.04.2002 at 11 A.M. and he has subscribed the oath as the requirement of Article 84 read with 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of India at 11 A.M. itself. (b) Respondent No. 2 Sri Sanjeev Kumar has filed his nomination paper on 23.04.2012 at 01.50 P.M., and he has subscribed the oath as per the requirement of Article 84 read with 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of India on the same day at the same time and same hour i.e. at 01.50 P.M. on 23.04.2012. Therefore, it cannot be said that both the them have subscribed the oath after filing of the nomination paper, hence, their nomination papers ought to have been rejected. (iii) Respondent No. 2 has deposited the security deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 17.04.2012. He has filed his nomination paper after six days i.e. on 23.04.2012. The security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in cash should have been deposited with the Returning Officer at the time of 2. filing his nomination paper in accordance with the provision of Section 34 of the R.P. Act. Therefore, security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 17.04.2012 was bad in law, hence nomination paper of respondent no. 2 ought to have been rejected.
(2.) In the last, it is pleaded that if nomination paper of either of the respondents no. 1 and 2 was rejected, respondent no. 3 would have been declared elected. Therefore, the election of respondents no. 1 and 2 be declared null and void on the ground that their nomination papers were wrongly accepted which, otherwise, ought to have been rejected. Further prayer was made to declare Sri Surendrajeet Singh Ahluwaliarespondent no. 3 as an elected candidate to the Rajya Sabha in the election held in May, 2012.
(3.) Mr. Anil Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the election petition was presented by the petitioner in person before the Registrar General of this Court on 16.06.2012 within the statuary limitation period of 45 days from the date of declaration of result and the same is accompanied by four extra copies duly attested by the petitioner under his signature; election petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- , therefore, the present petition is immune from any infirmity and defect and cannot be dismissed at initial stage on the ground of legal defects by invoking Section 86 of the R.P. Act and, therefore, summons have to be issued to the respondents.;