9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in which two vacancies had occurred which were to be filled from the State of Haryana. A notification was issued to fill up the two vacancies under which the last date of filing the nomination papers was 14.3.2002, the date of scrutiny was 15.3.2002, last date of withdrawal was 18.3.2002 and the date of polling was 27.3.2003. The appellant sought voluntary retirement from service as he wanted to contest the election to Rajya Sabha. On 15.3.2003, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the appellant on the ground that rule 16 of the 1958 Rules warranted giving three months previous notice to the appointing authority and since the said period had not elapsed on the date of scrutiny the appellant was holding the office of profit on that day and, therefore, stood disqualified under Article 102(1) (c) of the Constitution. On 18.3.2002, election results were announced, since there was no contest after rejection of the nomination papers submitted by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed election petition No. 27 of 2002 in the High Court on the ground that his nomination papers had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. In the election petition, he sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s controverting the averments made by the appellant. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the averments contained in the election petition were vague and lacked material facts and particulars, as such, the said petition was liable to be dismissed. In the written statement, the respondent submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed as the appellant had not disclosed a material facts as to on which date he had received communication regarding acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. On merits also, the respondents denied various averments made by the appellant. On the above pleadings, a preliminary issue was framed by the High Court - as to whether the petition lacked in material facts and did not disclose cause of action. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that section 83(1)(a) of the said Act mandates that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies; that in the present case, the appellant had failed to aver and plead two material facts viz. that his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the appointing authority before the date of scrutiny and that his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt could have gone to trial. Section 83(1) of the said Act reads as under: - 83. Contents of petition - (1) An election petition. (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings. Section 83 deals with contents of petition. It states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts, on which the petitioner relies and shall state full particulars of any corrupt practices which petitioner alleges and which shall be signed by him and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors., reported in (2004) 2 Scale 82 it has been held that Order VI Rule 2(1) of CPC deals with basic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority had received the notice on the specified date and that his request for waiver stood granted on the date of scrutiny and he ceased to be a government servant. These were the material facts which the appellant should have pleaded so that the returned candidates would not be taken by surprise. They were material facts within his knowledge and ought to have been pleaded in the election petition Lastly even the letter of the appellant seeking the waiver of the notice period did not form part of the election petition. Hence, the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition for want of material facts. We also do not find any merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the acceptance by the appointing authority of the application seeking permission to retire was not required as there was no difference between voluntary retirement and resignation . In the case of Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr., reported in (2004) 100 FLR 441, this Court has laid down that in service jurisprudence there is a difference between voluntary retirement and resignation as they convey different connotations. It has been held that volu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
