A.K. Sikri JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The Appellant herein was the successful candidate in the election of legislative assembly, which he contested from 56, Ambernath Constituency, Thane District, Maharashtra. There were five candidates in the fray for which the elections were held on October 13, 2004 and the results were declared on October 16, 2004. After he was declared elected, his election was challenged by the first Respondent, who is a voter in the said constituency. He filed the election petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay stating that the Appellant's nomination had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the election was void due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Rules and Orders framed under the said Act.
2. The election petition was filed under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act on the ground that in the nomination form filled in by the Appellant he had suppressed his dues payable to the Government, suppressed the assets of his spouse and also suppressed the information and assets of a partnership firm of which he is a partner. The Appellant contested the said petition. Evidence was led. After hearing the arguments, the High Court passed judgment dated August 16, 2007 accepting the plea of the first Respondent that the nomination form of the Appellant was defective and should not have been accepted by the Returning Officer. Thus, while allowing the election petition and setting aside of the election of the Appellant, the High Court recorded the non-disclosure on following counts:
a) Non-disclosure of dues to Maharashtra State Electricity Board in respect of two service connections held by him amounting to Rs. 79,200/- and Rs. 66,250/-.
b) The Appellant failed to disclose the ownership of Bungalow No. 866 and the taxes dues thereof amounting to Rs. 3,445/- owned by his wife.
c) The Appellant failed to disclose the particulars of the vehicle MH-05-AC-55 owned by the wife.
d) The Appellant is guilty of non-disclosure of property owned by firm Padmavati Developers of which the Appellant is a partner, which owns two plots of lands measuring 1313 sq.mtrs. and 1292 sq.mts. in Survey No. 48, Hissa No. 9 of Mouza Kalyan, Taluka Ambarnath, District Thane, Maharashtra.
Challenging the impugned judgment, the present statutory appeal is filed, as provided under Section 116A of the Act.
3. We may state, at the outset, that there is no dispute on facts, namely, the Appellant had not disclosed certain informations, as found by the High Court and noted above, in his nomination form. Entire dispute rests on the issue as to whether it was incumbent upon the Appellant to have disclosed such an information and non-disclosure thereof rendered his nomination invalid and void. The nature of information given by the Appellant in his nomination form, on the basis of which the Appellant contends that it ought to have been treated as substantial compliance, would be taken note of later at the appropriate stage. We deem it appropriat........