Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 825 (ALL)

Lal Bahadur v. Ram Achal Rajbhar

2004-04-16

BHANWAR SINGH

body2004
( 1 ) DR. Lal Bahadur, the General Secretary (Legal), U. P. Urdu Development Organization has filed this Election Petition under Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84, Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for the election of Mr. Ram Achal Rajbhar being declared as void. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the petitioners case is that he moved an application to Mr. R. P. Shukla, District Magistrate/district election Officer for supply of a copy of an electoral roll before nominations for the 14th Legislative Assembly were invited by the governor of Uttar Pradesh. The last date for filing the nomination was January 23, 2002. The Returning Officer handed over to him a nomination form in hindi and when the petitioner insisted for issuance of a nomination form in second official language revalent in Uttar Pradesh, namely, the urdu, the Returning Officer declined to oblige by saying that the nomination form in urdu was not available. Being aggrieved of the Returning Officers reply, the petitioner made a complaint to the District Election officer on 22nd ( 3 ) JANUARY, 2002. It was with great difficulty that the petitioner succeeded in getting a complete set of nomination form, which was partly in urdu and partly in hindi. The petitioner then went to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as required under the provision of Section 34 of representation of People Act, 1951. The Branch Manager of the state Bank of India, Akberpur, however, asked for translation of the Challan Form from Urdu to Hindi. The District Election Officer on being approached by the petitioner advised him to submit the form in hindi particularly when he had the knowledge of the said language. The petitioner then contacted Dr. Noor Mohammad, chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh but with no fruitful result. ( 4 ) WHEREVER the petitioner approached the Authorities, he was advised to submit the Challan Form in hindi language but nobody helped him. As a result, his nomination form filled-in urdu language could not be accepted. In the absence of an authorized translation of the Challan Form from urdu to hindi, deposit of rs. 5,000/- as security amount could not be made. As a result, his nomination form filled-in urdu language could not be accepted. In the absence of an authorized translation of the Challan Form from urdu to hindi, deposit of rs. 5,000/- as security amount could not be made. He then filed a complaint before the Chief Election Officer, Election Commission of india alongwith a complaint already made to Chief Election Officer, uttar Pradesh for suitable action against the officers and officials of District Election Office, Ambedkar Nagar. A similar complaint was separately moved to the District Election Officer. In the meantime, the list of validly nominated candidates was published. The petitioner again attracted the attention of Chief Election commissioner, Mr. J. M. Lingdoh through another complaint dated 6th February, 2002 and requested for postponement of U. P. General Assembly Election of 403 Assembly Constituencies. When no action was taken, the petitioner sent a communication to the president of India with a copy to the Governor of the State and alongwith the said communication, also attached the copies of the earlier complaints. In these circumstances, the petitioner was prevented from filing his nomination papers. ( 5 ) HIS demand for Voters List in urdu also remained unfulfilled and the complaints made in this regard also did not fetch any result. ( 6 ) IT is, in this background, that the petitioner has filed this election Petition challenging the 14th Assembly Election of Uttar pradesh from 114 Assembly Constituency, Akberpur. All the district authorities deputed for conduct of the election, namely, Sri r. P. Shukla, District Election Officer, Shri T. N. Shukla, Deputy district Election Officer, Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Assistant District election Officer and Shri M. P. Singh, Returning Officer acted in mala fide way by not providing to him the nomination papers, challan and Voters List in urdu. ( 7 ) BESIDES above, the Returning Officer did not publish and paste on notice board the notification in urdu inviting nominations from public, although such notice was put in english and hindi languages. In this way, there was clear-cut discrimination between the two official languages, namely, hindi and urdu. ( 8 ) THE petitioner on the strength of the above allegations prayed for a declaration that the election of the respondent-Ram achal Rajbhar was void. In this way, there was clear-cut discrimination between the two official languages, namely, hindi and urdu. ( 8 ) THE petitioner on the strength of the above allegations prayed for a declaration that the election of the respondent-Ram achal Rajbhar was void. It has been specifically asserted that in case the petitioner was allowed to file his nomination paper in time it was hundred percent sure that he would have been declared as successful candidate from 114 Assembly Constituency Akberpur. ( 9 ) THE respondent filed an application praying for dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action and the pleadings recited therein are unnecessary, vague and fictitious. The respondent asserted in his affidavit that the petitioner has no cause of action against him, as he is not responsible for failure of the authorities in providing to the petitioner nomination paper or other papers in urdu language. He expressed his dismay as to how his election would be deemed to have been materially affected if challan form in urdu language with Hindi translation was not provided to the petitioner by the authority concerned. As a matter of fact, the pleadings of the petitioner vis -.-vis the respondent are irrelevant, vague and vexatious. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has referred to various complaints made by him to different authorities and to the press but he has not disclosed as to how the result of election was materially affected, if the voters list was not supplied to the petitioner in time or in urdu language. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has referred to various complaints made by him to different authorities and to the press but he has not disclosed as to how the result of election was materially affected, if the voters list was not supplied to the petitioner in time or in urdu language. ( 11 ) SECTION 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 postulates that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the high Court is of opinion that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected - (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. ( 12 ) IN addition to the above four grounds, the election can also be declared as void on the basis that any nomination has been improperly rejected. In the case in hand, the petitioner, in fact, did not file his nomination paper, at all and therefore, he cannot claim any relief under Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act and as said earlier, the petitioner has not clearly revealed as to how the answering respondents result of election had been materially affected if the petitioner could not file his nomination paper. ( 13 ) I have heard the petitioner in person and Shri Shashi prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record. ( 14 ) THE main grounds on the basis of which the petitioner seeks relief for the declaration of the respondents election to be as void are that the Election Authorities, namely, the Chief Election officer, the District Election Officer and the Returning Officer did not provide to him the relevant papers pertaining to nomination in urdu language, as a result of which he could not deposit the security money of Rs. 5,000/- and further, in the absence of such deposit he could not file his nomination form. 5,000/- and further, in the absence of such deposit he could not file his nomination form. Prosecuting his claim, the petitioner has asserted in his petition that the respondents election is void under Section 98 of the Act and the high Court may declare his result as void because the District election Authorities were guilty of mala fides by refusing to deliver to him complete set of nomination papers including the treasury challan in urdu language with Hindi translation. ( 15 ) IN this context, it is noteworthy that under Section 100 of act, there are various grounds on the basis of which an election of a returned candidate can be declared to be as void but there is not an iota of a provision authorizing a person to seek declaration of an election being void merely on the ground that the election authorities did not provide to him papers in urdu language. As recited in the penultimate para of his petition, the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Sections 100 (1) (c), (1) (d) (i) and (1) (d) (iv)of the Act. Section 100 (1) may be quoted as below:- "100. As recited in the penultimate para of his petition, the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Sections 100 (1) (c), (1) (d) (i) and (1) (d) (iv)of the Act. Section 100 (1) may be quoted as below:- "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.- (1)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion - (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected - (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. " ( 16 ) IF the relevant provisions of the Section, as referred to in the petition, are taken one-by-one, clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of section 100 has to be referred to first. It provides that if a nomination has been improperly rejected, the election of a returned candidate can be declared to be void. In the case in hand, the stage of rejection of the petitioners nomination paper had not reached, as he failed to submit his nomination paper. For submitting a nomination paper, deposit of Rs. 5,000/-was a condition precedent. The petitioner could not deposit the said amount in time on account of his being not able to get the Hindi version of the treasury challan in urdu language. For submitting a nomination paper, deposit of Rs. 5,000/-was a condition precedent. The petitioner could not deposit the said amount in time on account of his being not able to get the Hindi version of the treasury challan in urdu language. The bank authorities declined to accept the challan in urdu as none of the officials of the bank would have been in a position to read or write urdu. The plea of Hindi translation of urdu challan being not available will be referred to latter in this judgment. Here, it is suffice to observe that the petitioner admittedly had a complete set of nomination form and other papers including challan in hindi and if on the last date of filing the nomination paper, i. e. 23rd january, 2002, the bank authorities had asked him to submit hindi translation of the challan in urdu, he would have without any difficulty submitted alongwith the challan in urdu language alongwith the one he had in Hindi. The petitioner has not disclosed any reasons to why he insisted the Election Authorities to provide to him Hindi translation of the challan in urdu when he was already in possession of a complete set of nomination papers in hindi including the challan in the said language. ( 17 ) IN these circumstances, it can well be derived that the petitioner was not playing a fair game nor he seemed to have any intention of contesting the election. Mala fides seem to have dominated him by withholding the treasury challan in hindi which was made available to him several days before the last date fixed for filing nomination paper. Therefore, none else than him alone is to blame for his inability for filing a nomination paper. The fact is that he failed to submit his nomination paper for his own fault. Therefore, the Election Authorities cannot be accused of making any contribution towards his own failures. Be that as it may, question of the petitioners nomination having been rejected had not arisen at all and therefore, Section 100 (1) (c) of the representation of the People Act, 1951 is not attracted. ( 18 ) SIMILARLY, clause (d) of the aforesaid sub-section cannot be invoked, as the result of the respondents election cannot be said to have been materially affected. The petitioner was not a candidate nor he intended to be a candidate in the disclosed circumstances. ( 18 ) SIMILARLY, clause (d) of the aforesaid sub-section cannot be invoked, as the result of the respondents election cannot be said to have been materially affected. The petitioner was not a candidate nor he intended to be a candidate in the disclosed circumstances. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to say that in case of the petitioners candidature, the result of the respondents election would have been materially affected. ( 19 ) FOR the same reasons, clause (d) (i) has no application to the facts of the case in hand, as the Returning Officer had not accepted anybodys nomination form. Sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) (d) of Section 100 also has no role to play as neither any provision of the Constitution has been violated nor the petitioner has been able to show to the Court that some rule or order made under this Act has not been followed so far as the Election Officers duty to provide to him the nomination papers in urdu was concerned. Though the petitioner has filed few papers pertaining to the use of urdu language, but these Circulars and Orders of the government have no direct bearing upon the election result of the respondent. There is no doubt that urdu language has been officially declared to be the second Language of the State but there is no provision of this kind in the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner has also not referred to any rule on the issue. Also there is no order of the Chief Election Commissioner or of the district Election Commission that if the nomination papers would not be provided in the Second Language, in consequence whereof a candidate would not be able to file his nomination paper, such a situation would provide a basis for declaration of a returned candidates election as void. It is needless to say that such a provision has to find place in the Representation of the People Act. As repeatedly said above, when Hindi was the first Language of this State and the petitioner was provided a complete set of nomination papers in Hindi and also all relevant papers in urdu language, there was no cause of action which can be said to have accrued to him to challenge the election of the respondent. As repeatedly said above, when Hindi was the first Language of this State and the petitioner was provided a complete set of nomination papers in Hindi and also all relevant papers in urdu language, there was no cause of action which can be said to have accrued to him to challenge the election of the respondent. He himself failed to fulfil the requirement of providing Hindi translation of the treasury challan to the bank authorities, even though he had the same in his possession. In grave emergency, he would have himself prepared the Hindi translation of the challan. ( 20 ) IN this context, the petitioners own conduct is noteworthy. From perusal of all the papers he has filed alongwith his Election petition, it would be clearly revealed that he asked for a copy of the concerned Voters List by virtue of his letter dated 9th January, 2002 (Annexure P/1) but he did not mention in his application with specificity that he desired the copy of the Voters List in urdu. Similarly, he has not been able to prove before the Court that he applied for a complete set of nomination papers in urdu language. It was only a day before, the last date, fixed for filing of nomination papers that he asked for the copy of the Voters List in urdu. Other papers were also asked by him. He admitted that another set of nomination papers was provided to him in urdu. As admitted by him in para 33, he had the complete set of Hindi nomination forms including a treasury challan with him. He would have made the said treasury challan available to the treasury and bank authorities, if he really intended to contest the election. The bank authorities were justified in demanding the Hindi translation of urdu treasury challan. As in the absence of accurate translation, they would not have been in a position to decipher as to what for the deposit was being made. The petitioner has not disclosed any explanation as to why he did not utilize the said treasury challan form in Hindi when he was asked to submit the Hindi translation of the challan in urdu. This clinches the issue and exposes the petitioners mala fides. Rule 2 (1) (g) of the Conduct of Election rules, 1961 also has a provision for translation of an official language. This clinches the issue and exposes the petitioners mala fides. Rule 2 (1) (g) of the Conduct of Election rules, 1961 also has a provision for translation of an official language. Obviously thus, the petitioner alone and none else had contributed to his failure in filing his nomination paper after depositing the requisite security fee of Rs. 5,000/ -. In other words, it may be observed that no cause of action to file this petition particularly against the respondent-Ram Achal Rajbhar, the successful candidate had accrued to him. The petitioner also failed to disclose as to how the election result of the respondent had been materially affected in the absence of his own being a candidate to contest the election. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not seem to be serious to contest the election. He appeared to be more particular in teasing the Election Authorities and the best proof of this temperament of his was that in spite of the fact that he was in possession of a treasury challan in hindi, he did not utilize it as the true Hindi translation of the treasury challan in urdu. The best course would have been that he deposited both the treasury challans and by taking recourse to that act, he would have conveniently deposited Rs. 5,000/- in the bank making him eligible to file and submit his nomination paper. But he opted to withhold the treasury challan form in hindi and take a collision course with the Election Officer and the Returning Officer as also the bank Authorities. By no stretch of reasoning, the petitioner can be said to have acted in a bona fide manner. Certainly, his acts and omissions were suffering from mala fides. ( 21 ) HAVING regard to all what has been said above, I am of the decisive opinion that the present Election Petition filed by Dr. Lal bahadur having not disclosed any cause of action against the respondent deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Election Petition is dismissed with costs. . .