Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C^ No.3059/2017& C.M.No.13375/2017(for stay)
RAVINDERNEGI
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Kavin Gulati, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Pratap, Mr. K.R. Anand, Mr.Avi Tandon, Ms. Vasudha Zutshi, Mr. Mukul Singh, Mr.Ravi Chandra Prakash, Mr.Sudhakar Kumar & Mr.Abhai
Verma,Advocates.
Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkama, Standing Counsel & Mr.Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajanish Singh, Returning Officer Ward lOE,in person.
W.P.
(C)No.3060/2017& C.M.No.13377/2017(for stay)
RENU NEGI
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Kavin Gulati, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Pratap, Mr. K.R. Anand, Mr.Avi Tandon, Ms. Vasudha Zutshi, Mr. Mukul Singh, Mr.Ravi Chandra Prakash, Mr.Sudhakar Kumar & Mr.Abhai
Verma,Advocates.
Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkama, Standing Counsel & Mr.Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
2017:DHC:8113 Mr. Rajanish Singh, Returning Officer Ward lOE,in person.
08.04.2017 The aforesaid writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Returning Officer dated 05.04.2017 rejecting the nomination of the petitioners on the same ground. Since the background facts in which these petitions have been preferred, and the issue involved is the same, and learned counsels have advanced the same set ofarguments,they are taken up for consideration and disposal by this common order.
The petitioner - Ravinder Negi offered his nomination from Ward
No. 10-E(VINOD NAGAR)for the forthcoming elections to the Municipal
Corporation.The petitioner-Renu Negi also offered her nomination for the same Ward.
The petitioners filed their respective nominations on the last date of filing i.e. 03.04.2017 along with their requisite affidavits. The nomination papers ofthe petitioners have been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the respective petitioners had not affixed their signatures on the nomination form No.2, which is the statutory form for filing nomination papers under Rule 17 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation/Election of
Councillors)Rules,2012. By not signing the nomination form,each ofthe petitioners had not declared thefollowing facts:
(i) What is the age ofthe candidate? (ii)Whatis the gender ofthe candidate?
(iii) Candidate has been set up by which recognized political party?
Consequently, the Returning Officer held that the petitioners could not be treated as qualified candidates as per Section 8 ofthe Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act,1957.
In these writ petitions, notice was issued on 07.04.2017 to the respondents on the premise that the failure of the respective petitioners to affix their signature at one place on the nomination form on account of oversight could not have been areason good enough to rejectthe nomination form by the Returning Officer, since the information contained on the said page of the nomination form (which had not been signed due to inadvertence) was furnished in the form of an affidavit by the respective petitioners.
During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the aforesaid submission of the petitioner is not entirely correct inasmuch, as, the petitioners have not made a declaration''that to the bestofmy knowledge and belief, Iam qualified and not also disqualifiedfor being chosen tofill the seatin the EastDelhiMunicipal Corporation^\
Sections 8 and 9 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 contain the stipulation with regard to the qualifications for councillorship, and the disqualifications for membership of corporation. The said provisions read as follows:
"8. Qualificationsfor councillorship - A person shall not be qualifiedto be chosen asa councillor unless he has attainedthe of twenty-one years and his name is registered as an elector in the electoralrollfora ward:
Provided that in the case of a seat reservedfor the
Scheduled Castes, a person shall not be so qualified unless he is also a member ofany ofthe said castes:
Providedfurther that in the case ofa seat reservedfor woman, no person other than a woman shall be qualified to be chosen as a councillor.
ORDER
9. Disqualificationsfor membership of Corporation (1) A person shall be disqualifiedfor chosen as, andfor being, a councillor, ***— (a) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (b)ifhe is an undischarged insolvent; (c)ifhe is nota citizen ofIndia, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship ofaforeign State, or is under any acknowledgement ofallegiance or adherence to aforeign State;
(d) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being inforcefor the purposes ofelections to the Legislative Assembly ofthe National Capital Territory ofDelhi; (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislative Assembly ofthe National Capital Territory ofDelhi; (f)ifhe holds any office ofprofit under the Corporation; (g) if he holds any office ofprofit under the Government or Central Government; (h) if he is a licensed architect, draughtsman, engineer, plumber, surveyor or town planner or is apartner ofafirm of which anysuch licensedperson is also apartner;
(i) ifhe is interested in any subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, the Corporation except as a shareholder (other than a director) in an incorporated company or asa memberofa co-operative society; 0)ifhe is retained or employed in any professional capacity either personally or in the name ofafirm of which he is a partner or with which he is engagedin aprofessionalcapacity, in connection with any cause or proceeding in which the Corporation or any ofthe municipalauthorities is interestedor % concerned; (k) if he, having held any office under the Government, a Corporation or any other authority, has been dismissedfor corruption or disloyalty to the State unless a period offour years has elapsedsince his dismissal or the disqualification has been removed by the Election Commission; (1) if he fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him, otherwise than as an agent, receiver, trustee or an executor, to a Corporation within three months after a notice in this behalf has been served upon him. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),— (b) a person shall not be deemed to have incurred any disqualification under clause (f) or clause (g) of that sub section by reason only ofhis receiving — (i)anypension; or
(ii) any allowance or facility for serving as the Mayor or
(c) a person shall not be deemed to have any interest in a contractor workssuch as is referred to in clause(i)ofthatsub section by reason only ofhis having ashare or interestin—
(i) any lease, sale, exchange or purchase of immovable property or any agreementfor thesame;or
(ii) any agreementfor the loan ofmoney or anysecurityfor the paymentofmoney only; or (Hi)any newspaper in which any advertisement relating to the affairs ofa Corporation is inserted; or
(iv) the sale to a Corporation or to any municipal authority or any officer or other employee ofthe Corporation on behalfof the Corporation, ofany article in which he regularly trades or the purchasefrom a Corporation orfrom any such authority, officer or other employee on behalfofa Corporation, ofany yarticle ofa value in either case not exceedingfive thousand rupees in the aggregate in any year during the period ofthe contract or work;or (v)the letting out on hire to a Corporation or the hiringfrom a Corporation of any article of a value not exceeding two thousand rupees in the aggregate in any year during the period ofthe contractor work;or
(vi) any agreement or contract with a Corporation or any municipal authority for any goods or services which a Corporation maygenerallysupply. (3)Ifaperson sits or votes as a member ofa Corporation when he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualifiedfor such membership, he shall be liable in respect ofeach day on which he so sits or votes to apenalty ofthree hundredrupees to be recovered as an arrear oftax under this Act". Reliance placed by the petitioners on their respective affidavits filed along with their respective nomination forms,to submit that they contained all the relevantinformation,which is covered by the aforesaid declaration,is misplaced. A perusal of the affidavits filed by the petitioners shows that they do not address all the grounds for disqualification for membership of the corporation. A declaration by a candidate to the effeet that to the best of his knowledge and belief, he is qualified and also not disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat in the Municipal Corporation implicitly contains a positive and eategorical assertion by the candidate that he meets the requirement ofSection 8 ofthe Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957,and also that he does not fall under any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 9 of the said Act. A perusal of the affidavits of the petitioners, which are so heavily relied upon by the petitioners,shows that the same do not contain a declaration, inter alia, in respeet of the disqualification enumerated in any ofthe clauses(a)to(1)ofSection 9(1)ofthe said Act. The omissions on the part ofthe petitioners are clearly an omission of a substantial nature. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that during scrutiny,the concerned ARO should have got the form signed by the petitioners at the time ofscrutiny. There is no provision pointed out in the relevant election rules which authorizes the returning officer to permit the candidate to make up the deficiencies ofthis nature beyond the closing time offiling ofnominations. The petitioner has himself/herselfto blame for the aforesaid failure which is a failure ofa substantial nature. For the aforesaid reasons,in my view,there is no merit in this petition and the impugned orders passed by the Returning Officer in the case ofthe petitioners appear to be clearly justified. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. /'fr- VIPIN SANGHI,J APRIL 08,2017 sr/sl