Early Times Report
jammu, Mar 11: High court judge Tashi Rabstan today dismissed a petition filed by ex-minister Chander Prakash Ganga, against the election of Surjit Singh to the legislative assembly from Vijaypur constituency (No 69) on December 28, 2008.
He dismissed the petition with the observation that attestation of every copy of election petition filed by the petitioner "under his own signature" was mandatory, but non-compliance with the provisions of section 89(3) of the Act, "renders the election petition liable to be dismissed under Section 94(1) of the Act".
Justice Tashi, after hearing the two sides, observed that it "is averred that Surjit Singh got 21090 votes, whereas petitioner stood second with 19878 votes, losing to Surjit by a margin of 1212 votes". Ganga had challenged Surjit's election on the ground that he was the beneficiary of not less than 4000 invalid votes which were allowed to be cast in the election by the serious acts of omission and commission of respondents 2 to 4.
It was alleged that these votes were allowed to be cast by certain polling officers using unlawful means, ie allowing such persons to cast their votes even when they did not have identity cards, allowing a number of persons, who had doubtful identities, to cast votes, allowing about 600 persons, having fake identities in the shape of passports, to cast votes at Polling Station No 17, difference between number of voters recorded and number of votes polled at certain polling stations, replacing some Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) without the notice of petitioner and allowing number of voters at some of the polling stations to cast their votes even after the expiry of time prescribed. Thus, it was allegedly averred that at a number of polling stations in Vijaypur constituency, many polling officers in connivance with respondents 2 to 4 had facilitated bogus voting only to make way for Surjit Singh.
Justice Tashi observed that the main thrust of argument of respondents' counsel was that every copy of election petition had not been attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition as required under section 89(3) of the Act, and that the election petition had not been drafted in accordance with the Act and section 89(3) which provides that a copy of the petition shall be attested by the petitioner "under his own signature", whereas Section 94(1) of the Act mandates that "High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 89 or section 90 or section 125."
He observed that the law laid down by the Apex Court that requirement of attestation of every copy of election petition by the petitioner "under his own signature" was mandatory, non-compliance with the provisions of section 89(3) of the Act, renders the election petition liable to be dismissed under section 94(1) of the Act. Therefore, the preliminary issue was decided in favour of appearing respondents and against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the election petition along with connected miscellaneous petition, if any, was dismissed on the preliminary issue alone, he ordered. (JNF) |
