Indermeet Kaur JUDGMENT
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. The petitioner (Dr. Narotam Mishra) is aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the Chief Election Commission vide which the petitioner stood disqualified under Section 10-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). This disqualification was for a period of three years to be counted from the date of the said order; this was under the provisions of Section 10-A read with Sections 77 & 78 of the said Act. The Commission was of the view that failure on the part of the petitioner to explain his account of election expenses in the manner required by law and having no good reason or justification for such a failure, he had incurred this disqualification.
2. The petitioner was aggrieved.
3. He filed legal proceedings in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (W.P.(C) No. 9704/2017 Dr. Narotam Mishra Vs. Rajender Bharti). SLP {(C) No. 1608/2017 Rajender Bharti Vs. Dr. Narotam Mishra} and a Transfer Petition {(c) D-20213/2017} also came to be filed before the Apex Court. These petitions were disposed of on 12.07.2017. The parties agreed that W.P.(C) No. 9704/2017 pending before the Bench of Madhya Pradesh be transferred for hearing and disposal on merits to the High Court of Delhi. The Apex Court had noted that the outcome of the proceedings in the aforenoted writ petition would have an important bearing on as to whether the petitioner (in W.P.(C) No. 9704/2017) continues to be a Member of Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh or not and hence if he could vote in the Presidential election scheduled for 17.07.2017. The Apex Court was of the view that this issue could be determined only after the challenge raised to the order passed by the Election Commission (23.06.2017) is decided by the High Court either finally or by an interim order.
4. Under the aforenoted order of the Apex Court (12.07.2017), the matter was transferred to the High Court of Delhi and under the orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, the matter has been assigned to the Court of the undersigned.
5. Record evidences that:
(i) The petitioner is an elected member from 22, Datia Assembly Constituency, District Datia, Madhya Pradesh.
(ii) The present dispute relates to the general election of the Legislative Assembly of the said Constituency which election was held in November-December, 2008 and the tenure of which stood expired in the year 2013.
(iii) Rajender Bharti (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3), the defeated candidate had filed a complaint against the petitioner on 13.04.2009. Allegations were with respect to allegedly incorrect election expenses accounted for by the petitioner.
(iv) Petitioner submitted his election expenses within the time frame before the District Election Officer (DEO), District Datia to the tune of Rs. 2,40,827/-. The complaint however alleged otherwise.
(v) Election Petition (No. 26/2009) was filed by respondent No. 3 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 20.01.2009 (Gwalior Bench). The same allegations as in the complaint were leveled. Order dated 26.03.2010 was passed in the said petition. SLP No. 14984/2010 was preferred against that order by the petitioner. An interim order dated 05.07.2010 was passed whereby the Election Petition was stayed. On 29.11.2012, the complainant-respondent No. 3 moved an application seeking a withdrawal of the aforenoted Election Petition (No. 26/2009). The proceedings before the Apex Court were also disposed of (SLP No. 14984/2010).
(vi) Since no action was initiated against the petitioner; repeated complaints were filed by respondent No. 3.
(vi........