A writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate's nomination paper because he submitted an amended affidavit after scrutiny commenced. The High Court dismissed the petition as disputed questions of fact inherent in the Returning Officer's findings could not be reheard under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~28
SURJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.R.K.Bali, Mr.G.S.Randhawa, Advs.
versus
RETURNING OFFICER/SCRUTINISING OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Dewan, Ms.Palak, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 10.04.2017
respondent i.e. Returning Officer/Scrutiny officer at 11.00 am on 5th April, 2017. The petitioner was told that the scrutiny of his constituency would commence at 2.00 pm. The petitioner informed the respondent that he has to submit the amended affidavit. On that, he was asked to come with the amended affidavit at 2.00 pm itself. Accordingly, the petitioner reached the office of the respondent at 2.00 pm and submitted his amended affidavit, which was duly received by the respondent but he was handed over an order dated 5th April, 2017 vide which his nomination paper was rejected on the ground, the affidavit should have been submitted before the start of the scrutiny.
“ The contention of the candidate has been considered and found that there is no merit in the contention made by the candidate because it is clearly mentioned in the checklist that afresh affidavit must be submitted before the commencement of scrutiny of nomination paper and that checklist has been signed by the candidate himself which proves that the candidate was well aware of the fact about the time limit for submission of affidavit but he deliberately failed to do so. Further the other contention that the candidate is present since 11.00 AM cannot be proved because when the scrutiny of ward 12E was commenced, most of the candidate along with their representative were present in the chamber of the undersigned where scrutiny was going on and this candidate namely Surjeet Singh entered in this room after commencement of scrutiny and scrutinization of some nomination papers. Apart from that, many affidavit have been received today from the various candidates of various ward before the commencement of scrutiny, then how is it possible that this candidate namely Surjeet Singh has not been able to submit fresh affidavit well in time.
Since there were some columns blank in the affidavit (Form 22) while delivering the nomination paper before the ARO and duly filled fresh affidavit (Form 22) has not been submitted before the commencement of scrutiny in respect of Ward No.12E, therefore as per para 4(III) of the direction dated 06.04.2017 issued by State Election Commissioner, the nomination paper of Sh. Surjeet Singh, a independent candidate is hereby rejected. ”
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
APRIL 10, 2017 RN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can succeed to challenge a Returning Officer's finding that a candidate failed to submit an amended affidavit before the commencement of scrutiny.
Surjeet Singh
Returning Officer/Scrutinising Officer
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
