# Sukramapal v. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-18
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 36846 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukramapal-v-chief-election-commissioner-ors-54659
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Representation of the
Peoples Act, 1951-Section 80-Petitioner's
seeks quashing of order of rejection of the
nomination papers -rejected due to non-filling
up of the affidavit accompanying the Form 26,-
Clause 6(K) and Clause 8(ii) were not filled up
for the bye-election 2024 for the post of M.L.A.-
the relief sought is one which can be challenged
by way of an election petition under Section 80
of the Act-alternative efficacious remedy .

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Resurgence India Vs Election Commission of
India & anr., AIR 2014 Supreme Court 344

## Text

462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13
श्री
अरूण
कुमार
श्रीवास्तव
मु
रािाबाि
14
श्री
आशीष
कुमार
श्रीवास्तव
आ
गरा
15
श्री मनु कसंह,
अ
लीगढ़
16
श्री जय कुमार
ब
स्ती
17
श्री आजाि खान
फै
जाबाि
18
श्री ताररका मकबूल खान
गो
रखपुर

2- उक्त अकधवक्ताओं द्वारा पैरवी करने पर
िेय फीस गांव सभा के संकचत कोष से वहन की जायेगी।
कृपया उक्त आिेशों से अपने कनयंत्रणाधीन
समस्त अकधकाररयों को अवगत कराने का कि करें।
भविीय,
(ककशन कसंह अटोररया)
प्रमुख सकचव"

9.

From
bare
perusal
of
engagement/appointment letter dated 16.5.2023, it
is apparent that the petitioner was authorized to
appear in all the cases (writ petitions/appeals) in
which Gaon Sabha was a party. It is nowhere
mentioned that petitioner was not required to
appear in the cases which relates to fair price shop,
Lohia Awas, Prime Minister Awas, proceedings
against Pradhan, family register, Aangabadi
stipend and ration card.

10. Since the petitioner was authorized
to appear in all the cases where the Gaon Sabhas
of district Jaunpur was a party and the copy of the
writ petitions/appeals were served upon the
petitioner and he appeared before the Court and
assisted the Hon'ble Court in all the matters, he is
entitled to receive professional fees.

11. Learned Standing Counsel has failed
to point out any communication served upon the
petitioner that petitioner was not required to
appear on behalf of Gaon Sabha in the cases,
which relates to fair price shop, Lohia Awas,
Prime Minister Awas, proceedings against
Pradhan, family register, Aangabadi stipend
and ration card. Since the petitioner was
authorized to receive notices in all the matters
where the Gaon Sabha was a party and he
appeared before the Court and assisted the
Court, the petitioner is entitled for professional
fees. The action of respondent no.2 in denying
the professional fees to the petitioner is
arbitrary and malafide. It may be noted that the
professional fees for the district Varanasi,
Ghazipur and Chandauli have already been
paid to the petitioner for all the cases in which
he appeared on behalf of Gaon Sabha. In light
of the same, the impugned order dated
20.7.2023 is liable to be set aside.

12. In view of above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2023 is
set-aside. The respondent no.2 District Magistrate,
Jaunpur is directed to re-consider the claim of the
petitioner and pay the outstanding professional
fees to the petitioner for the cases, where notices
for Gaon Sabhas of District Jaunpur were served
upon him and he represented the Gaon Sabha
before the Court.

13. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 36846 of 2024

Sukramapal ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
 ...Respondents
11 All. Sukramapal Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
463
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Mishra, Dinesh Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - The Representation of the
Peoples Act, 1951-Section 80-Petitioner's
seeks quashing of order of rejection of the
nomination papers -rejected due to non-filling
up of the affidavit accompanying the Form 26,-
Clause 6(K) and Clause 8(ii) were not filled up
for the bye-election 2024 for the post of M.L.A.-
the relief sought is one which can be challenged
by way of an election petition under Section 80
of the Act-alternative efficacious remedy .

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Resurgence India Vs Election Commission of
India & anr., AIR 2014 Supreme Court 344

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Ojha,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.1.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the writ petitioner seeks quashing
of order dated October 28, 2024 passed
by the Returning Officer, State Legislative
Assembly, for the bye-election 2024 for the
post
of
M.L.A.
from
16-Meerapur,
Muzaffarnagar.

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent has objected the
filing of this writ petition and stated that
the same is not maintainable keeping in
mind Article 329 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 80 and Section 100
of the Representation of the Peoples Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act').
Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that Section 80 categorically bars an
election to be called in question except by
way of election petition provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Act.
He further submits that Section 100(1)(C)
specifically provides that one of the
grounds for declaring election to be void is
when a nomination has been improperly
rejected. In light of the same he submits
that the petitioner has already an alternative
efficacious remedy and the challenge made
via the route of writ petition is not
maintainable. He further submits that since
the elections are to be held on November
20, 2024 i.e., two days from date, it is not
possible now to include the petitioner in the
election process for technical reasons. He
further relied on the judgement of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Resurgence India
vs Election Commission of India &
Another dated September 13, 2013
reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 344,
wherein
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
categorically held that non-filling of any
portion of the election form and the
affidavit that accompanies the same would
make the nomination paper liable to be
rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has submitted that
his fundamental right is being violated
without any proper reasons having been
offered and he submits that some parts
were not filled up since the answers to the
questions had been given in the paragraph
above.

5. Upon perusal of the documents
and the explanation provided by the
petitioner and the counter arguments raised
by the respondent it is noted that the reason
for rejection of the nomination papers were
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
due to non-filling up of the affidavit
accompanying the Form 26, wherein
Clause 6(K) and Clause 8(ii) were not filled
up. The order passed by the Election
Officer is provided below-:

नोसमनेशन पत्र क्रम-34/LA/2024/RO- सुक्रमपाल

आदेश

नामांकन पत्र क्रमांक 34/LA/2024/RO की
सम्यक संवीक्षा की गयी। उक्त नासमनेशन पत्र
इस कायाटलय में ददनांक 25.10.2024 को
अपरान्ह 2:38 बिे प्रस्तुत ककया गया। नाम
ननदेशन पत्र के साथ संलग्न शपथ पत्र प्रारूप26 के भाग-क 6 (क), 8 (ii) को मा० उच्ितम
न्यायालय के आदेशों व मा० आयोग के ननदेशों
के अनुसार प णट एवं सही रूप से नहीं भरा गया
जिसके क्रम में संबंचधत अभ्यथी को िेकसलस्ट
(नोदटस) ददनांक 25.10.2024 को प्राप्त कराया
गया है एवं प णट व सही भरा हुआ शपथ पत्र
ससमय दाखखल करने हेतु स चित ककया। जिसके
क्रम में आि ददनांक 28.10.2024 को संवीक्षा
प्रारम्भ होने से प वट अभ्यथी द्वारा नया
शपथपत्र दाखखल ककया गया। नये शपथपत्र के
PART-A के स्तम्भ-8 (ii) (B) (ii) को खाली छोडा
गया है। ररटननिंग अचधकारी के सलए पुजस्तका -
2023 के अध्याय-5 के पैरा-5.16.4 के अनुसार
मा० न्यायालय ने कहा है कक यदद ककसी मद
के सलये प्रस्तुत ककये िाने हेतु कोई स िना नहीं
है तो ऐसे स्तम्भ में उपयुटक्त असभयुजक्तयां
"श न्य" या "लाग नहीं" या "ज्ञात नहीं" को यथा
प्रयोज्य दशाटया िाएगा तथा अध्याय 6 नाम
ननदेशन पत्रों की अस्वीकृनत के सलये आधार के
पैरा-6.10.1 के बबन्दु संख्या 10 के अनुसार
शपथ पत्र में कालम खाली छोडे गये और
स िना के बावि द नया शपथ पत्र दाखखल नहीं
ककया गया है तो नाम ननदेशन पत्रों की
अस्वीकृनत के सलये आधार होगा। िो उक्त नाम
ननदेशन पत्र को ननरस्त करने का पयाटप्त
आधार है।

ि ंकक प णट भरा हुआ शपथ पत्र प्रारूप-26 नाम
ननदेशन पत्र का आधारभ त तत्व है और उक्त
अभ्यथी द्वारा इस नामांकन पत्र में प रा नहीं
ककया गया है। अतः नये शपथ पत्र के सभी
कॉलम प णट न होने के कारण तथा कुछ कॉलम
ररक्त होने के कारण शपथ पत्र अप णट माना
िाता है।

अतः संवीक्षा उपरान्त उक्त नाम ननदेशन पत्र
ननरस्त ककया िाता है।

ददनांक: 28-10-2024

ररटननिंग आफीसर
ववधानसभा-16 मीरापुर

6. Before going into the merits of the
present case one may examine the ratio of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in
Resurgence India (supra). The relevant
paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow-:

"27) What emerges from
the
above
discussion
can
be
summarized
in
the
form
of
following directions:

(i) The voter has the
elementary right to know full
particulars of a candidate who is to
represent
him
in
the
Parliament/Assemblies and such
right
to
get
information
is
universally recognized. Thus, it is
11 All. Sukramapal Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
465
held that right to know about the
candidate is a natural right flowing
from the concept of democracy and
is an integral part of Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

(ii) The ultimate purpose of
filing of affidavit along with the
nomination paper is to effectuate
the
fundamental
right
of
the
citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of India. The
citizens are supposed to have the
necessary information at the time
of filing of nomination paper and
for that purpose, the Returning
Officer can very well compel a
candidate to furnish the relevant
information.

(iii) Filing of affidavit with
blank particulars will render the
affidavit nugatory.

(iv) It is the duty of the
Returning Officer to check whether
the information required is fully
furnished at the time of filing of
affidavit with the nomination paper
since such information is very vital
for giving effect to the 'right to
know' of the citizens. If a candidate
fails to fill the blanks even after the
reminder by the Returning Officer,
the nomination paper is fit to be
rejected. We do comprehend that
the power of Returning Officer to
reject the nomination paper must
be exercised very sparingly but the
bar should not be laid so high that
the justice itself is prejudiced.

(v) We clarify to the extent
that Para 73 of People's Union for
Civil Liberties case (supra) will not
come in the way of the Returning
Officer to reject the nomination
paper when affidavit is filed with
blank particulars.

(vi) The candidate must
take
the
minimum
effort
to
explicitly remark as 'NIL' or 'Not
Applicable' or 'Not known' in the
columns and not to leave the
particulars blank.
(vii) Filing of affidavit with
blanks will be directly hit by
Section 125A(i) of the RP Act
However, as the nomination paper
itself is rejected by the Returning
Officer, we find no reason why the
candidate must be again penalized
for the same act by prosecuting
him/her."

7. It may be noted that point (iv)
and (vi) at paragraph 27 clearly lay down
the
requirements
of
the
candidates
requiring to fill up each column and not
leave a single particular blank.

8. In the present case we are of the
view that this Court should not go into the
issue on merits as the relief sought by the
petitioner is one which can be challenged
by way of an election petition under
Section 80 of the Act. Our comments on the
merits are only tentative in the nature and
should not influence the Court hearing the
election petition, if any.

9. In light of the alternative
efficacious
remedy
available
to
the
petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed
with liberty granted to the petitioner to
approach
the
appropriate
forum
for
redressal of his grievance at the appropriate
time.
----------
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 11 ILRA 466
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 2003852 of 1991

Dr. C.B. Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Anurag Srivastava, Rani
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Service Law- Constitution of
India,1950 - Articles 14, 226, 300-A & 311
- Service Law - Pension - Disciplinary
proceedings- Inquiry report - non-supply
of report to delinquent before passing
punishment order - Violation of principles
of natural justice. (Para 18)

HELD:
On careful consideration of the aforesaid
judgment, it is evident that even after the
amendment in Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, the supply of enquiry report is necessary.
It is admitted case of the parties that the
petitioner has not been supplied with the
enquiry report by the Administrative Tribunal
while concluding the enquiry. As such, the ratio
of the judgment relied upon is fully applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the case of the
petitioner. (Para 18)

B. Interim orders - Restoration of writ
petition - Revival of interim orders-
Interim orders granted prior to dismissal
of writ petition are automatically revived
upon restoration of the petition unless
explicitly
vacated-
Interim
protection
granted
on
16.07.1991
remained
operative upon restoration of the writ
petition. (Paras 23 and 26)
HELD:
It is submitted that it is well settled that
restoration of a petition automatically revives its
ancillary orders/ interlocutory orders passed
before its dismissal. In aforesaid regard, reliance
has been placed on a judgment rendered in the
case of Vareed Jacob Vs Sosamma Geevarghese
& ors.[(2004) 6 SCC 378]. (Para 23)

Thus, in the peculiar set of facts wherein in
respect of the impugned punishment order,
already interim protection was granted and the
same continues while the petitioner has already
left for his heavenly abode on 17.1.2018, the
impugned punishment order dated 20.12.1990
and consequential order dated 12.4.1991 are
liable to be aside on the aforesaid ground as
well. (Para 26)

C. Pension - Withholding of pension -
Whether pension can be withheld or
stopped by administrative orders without
due
process
of
law-
pension
is
a
constitutional right under Article 300-A-
Right
to
property-
Executive
orders
without statutory backing or breach of
due
process
violate
constitutional
protections-petition allowed. (Paras 28
and 31)
HELD:
In the instant matter, as has already been
enumerated in the discussion of Issue No.1, the
procedure prescribed by law, more particularly
in constitutional provisions enshrined in Articles
14 and 311, have not been followed inasmuch
as the punishment order has been passed
without serving a copy of the enquiry report in
disciplinary proceedings upon the petitioner,
such an action cannot be sustained as the same
infringes Right to Property of petitioner as
envisaged
under
Article
300-A
of
the
Constitution of India, which also includes Right
to receive pension of petitioner. As for stopping
the pension, due procedure established by law
was required to be mandatorily followed and the
same could not have been done in utter
defiance of mandate contained in Article 14 read
with Article 311 of Constitution of India. (Para
28)