STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In an election petition filed by Chander Parkash Ganga the election of Surjit Singh to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from Vijaypur Constituency No.69, the result of which was declared on 28th December 2008, Justice Tashi Rabstan dismissed the petition with the observation that attestation of every copy of election petition by the petitioner “under his own signature” is mandatory , non-compliance with the provisions of Section 89(3) of the Act, thus, renders the election petition liable to be dismissed under Section 94(1) of the Act.
Justice Tashi Rabstan after hearing senior Advocate L.K Sharma appearing for the petitioner whereas Senior AAG Seema Shekhar appearing for the State whereas Advocate D.S Chouhan appearing for Surjit Singh, observed that it is averred that Surjit Singh got 21090 votes, whereas petitioner stood second with 19878 votes, thus losing to Surjit Singh by a margin of 1212 votes. Thus, petitioner has challenged the election of Surjit Singh mainly on the ground that Surjit Singh was the beneficiary of not less than 4000 invalid votes which were allowed to cast in the said election by the serious acts of omission and commission on the part of respondents.
It is alleged that these votes were allowed to cast by certain polling officers using unlawful means, i.e., allowing such persons to cast their votes having no identity cards; allowing a number of persons to cast votes under disguise identity or having doubtful identity; allowing about 600 persons in Polling Station No.17 carrying fake identity in the shape of Passports; in certain polling stations there was a clear difference between number of voters recorded and number of votes polled; replacing some of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMS) without the notice of petitioner and allowing number of voters in some of the polling stations to cast their votes even after the expiry of time prescribed. Thus, it is averred that in a number of polling stations in Vijaypur Constituency many polling officers facilitated bogus voting only to make way for Surjit Singh.
Justice Tashi Rabstan further observed that the main thrust of argument of counsel for the appearing respondents is that every copy of election petition has not been attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition as required by Section 89(3) of the Act, and that the election petition has not been drafted in accordance with the Act and Section 89(3) of the Act provides that a copy of the petition shall be attested by the petitioner “under his own signature” to be a true copy of the petition, whereas Section 94(1) of the Act mandates that “the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 89 or section 90 or section 125.”
Justice Tashi Rabstan after hearing both the sides in length 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” is mandatory one, non-compliance with the provisions of Section 89(3) of the Act, thus, renders the election petition liable to be dismissed under Section 94(1) of the Act. Therefore, the preliminary issue is decided in favour of appearing respondents and against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the election petition along with connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is dismissed on the preliminary issue alone.
