Legal cases with fixed pricing, standardized processes, and firm timelines
Petition challenging the election of Mr. Ajay Maken as MP in the Lok Sabha election of 2009 from the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court on friday.
The Petition was filed by the Mr. Adesh Kumar Gupta. It was alleged by the petitioner that during the elections Mr. Ajay Maken along with his election agent was indulged in the corrupt practices and thus the demand for declaring his election to be void was put forth by way of the petition.
Petitioner had specifically alleged that Mr. Maken had offered food and water to the voters to induce them and to canvass his during the polls had sought assistance from the government officers present for poll duty. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the statutory expending limit of Rs. 25 lakhs for election related expenses had been exceeded by Mr. Maken and he also failed to maintain the book of accounts for the expenditure incurred during elections.
The Petition was sought to be rejected by Mr Ajay Maken on various grounds, inter alia, missing portions of documents filed with the petition, dim or illegible copies of the annexures, verification clause of the petition was not signed by the petitioner. Mr. Maken relied on the section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The court at the outset emphasized on the necessity of adherence to the statutory requirements. It was observed by the court that the section 81(3) provides that the petition is required to be served as substantially original.
The court agreed with some of the assertions made by Mr. Maken It said that the petition was originally filed on 30.6.2009 and was re-filed on 02.07.2009. However, the copy which was served on to the Mr. Maken was neither the one filed on the 30.06.2009 nor the one re-filed on the 02.07.2009. The petition which was served was not duly signed by the petitioner. The affidavit which was accompanied by the petition was not verified by the petitioner.
It is therefore held by the court that the petition served to Mr. Maken was significantly different from the original and the defaults made by the petitioner cannot be said that compliance has not been done accordance with the section 81(3) of the act and thus the petition is dismissed.