Case Note & Summary
These are two election petitions filed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar as the returned candidate from 101-Jalna Legislative Assembly Constituency in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly elections held in October 2014. The petitioner in Election Petition No. 6 of 2014, Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal, contested the election as a candidate of the Congress I party, while the petitioner in Election Petition No. 9 of 2014, Vijay Shamlal Chaudhary, was an elector of the constituency. The returned candidate secured 45,078 votes against the Congress candidate’s 44,782 votes, with a victory margin of 296 votes. The petitioners contended that the returned candidate filed four sets of nomination papers—two on 26 September 2014 (Nos. 9 and 10) and two on 27 September 2014 (Nos. 43 and 44)—all of which suffered from defects of a substantial nature and were filed after the statutory deadline of 3:00 p.m. on 27 September 2014. The alleged defects included nomination forms not being in the prescribed format, incomplete information in Form 26 (affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities), failure to attach original notarized copies of Form 26, and non-submission of Forms A and B under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. Petitioners asserted that Forms A and B were handed over after 3:00 p.m., and the two nomination forms filed on 27 September were presented to the Returning Officer only after 3:00 p.m., despite the checklist acknowledging receipt being deliberately backdated. They claimed the late presentation was witnessed by several persons and recorded on video cameras installed in the Returning Officer’s office. The petitioner in EP 6/2014 stated he had lodged a complaint with the Returning Officer on 27 September 2014 itself and a further complaint on 28 September 2014, but the Returning Officer rejected the objection without proper inquiry. The core legal question was whether the nomination papers were improperly accepted, and if so, whether the election of the returned candidate should be declared void under the Act. However, the provided judgment text is incomplete and ends abruptly during the narration of the petitioners’ case, without any recording of the respondent’s arguments, the court’s analysis, or the final decision. Consequently, no findings, ratio decidendi, or operative directions could be extracted.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Paper Requirements - Compliance with Format and Time Limits - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 80, 81; Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Para 13(b), (c) - Petitioners alleged that nomination papers of returned candidate were filed after 3:00 p.m. on 27.09.2014, incomplete, not in prescribed format, and not accompanied by Forms A, B and proper affidavit in Form 26 - Petitioners contended that all nomination papers of returned candidate were liable to be rejected but were improperly accepted by Returning Officer - Court's analysis and decision not available in provided incomplete text (Paras 1-12). B) Election Law - Defects in Nomination - Substantial Defects - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 80, 81 - Petitioners specifically pleaded that Form 26 filed with two nomination papers was incomplete (information of only four persons given instead of required five) and with another nomination paper, only a photocopy of Form 26 was filed instead of original notarized affidavit - Alleged non-compliance with mandatory requirements under the Act and Election Symbols Order - No court finding recorded in available text (Paras 3, 11). C) Election Law - Time of Presentation of Nomination Papers - Mandatory Deadline - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 80, 81 - Petitioners asserted that nomination forms Nos. 43 and 44 were physically handed over to Returning Officer after 3:00 p.m. and checklists were delivered at 4:05 p.m., but time was falsely shown as 2:20 p.m. - Also contended that A, B forms were handed over after 3:00 p.m. - Allegation that entire nomination set should have been rejected for late presentation - Court's adjudication on this point not included in provided excerpt (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the nomination papers of the returned candidate were improperly accepted due to late filing beyond 3:00 p.m. on the last date, incomplete and defective forms, and non-compliance with statutory requirements, warranting rejection and setting aside of election
Final Decision
Not mentioned - judgment text incomplete
Law Points
- Requirements for valid nomination under Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- compliance with time limits for filing nomination papers
- necessity of accompanying Forms A
- B and Form 26
- effect of defects of substantial nature on nomination papers
- obligation of Returning Officer to reject defective nomination papers
