Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Y.P. Nargotra, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Clause (A) of the Notification reads:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '899786',
			'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
			'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
			'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
			'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '899786',
		(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ch Liaqat Ali Vs Puran Singh and ors - Citation 899786 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '899786',
		'acts' => 'Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 41, 44, 44(1) and 108; ;Central Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29(A); ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Act - Section 138; ;Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 - Rules 5 and 10',
		'appealno' => 'EP No. 7/2002',
		'appellant' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ch. Liaqat Ali Vs. Puran Singh and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => 'Last date for making nominations         = 29th August 2002 
Date for scrutiny of nomination papers   = 31st August 2002
Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002
Date of polling, if necessary            = 16.9.2002
Date for completion of election process  = 12.10.2002.
',
		'counselplain' => ' A.V. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and; Y.E. Tak, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Nemo',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-04-03',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.</p><p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:</p><p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.</p><p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.</p><p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:</p><p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.</p><p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.</p><p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.</p><p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.</p><p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.</p><p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.</p><p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.</p><p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.</p><p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:</p><p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.</p><p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.</p><p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.</p><p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).</p><p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.</p><p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.</p><p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:</p><p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.</p><p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:</p><p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)</p><p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.</p><p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.</p><p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.</p><p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.</p><p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.</p><p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.</p><p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(2)JKJ557',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Puran Singh and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '899786',
	(int) 1 => 'ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/899786/ch-liaqat-ali-vs-puran-singh-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Y.P. Nargotra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Through the medium of this Election Petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Election Commission of India issued a Notification on 22nd August 2002 calling upon the electorates of the respective constituencies to elect 26 members to the Legislative Assemblies which includes 82 Assembly constituency of District Rajouri. The schedule for holding election was as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Last date for making nominations = 29th August 2002 Date for scrutiny of nomination papers = 31st August 2002Last date for withdrawal of candidatures = 2nd Sept. 2002Date of polling, if necessary = 16.9.2002Date for completion of election process = 12.10.2002.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The petitioner Liaqat Ali filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party whereas respondent Puran Singh filed his nomination papers as an Independent candidate. Besides the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and eight other candidates respondents No. 2 to 9 also filed their nominations. Respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Samajwadi Party.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The Returning Officer vide Order No. RO/82/Darhal/25 dated 31.8.2002 rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 saying:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>The candidate has filed his nomination papers as a candidate set up by Samaj Wadi Party. Said Party is not recognized Party of J&K; State. Section 10.2 of Chapter-V of Hand Book of Returning Officers says as under:If a State party recognized in one State is granted concession for using its reserved Symbol under para-10 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in another State in which it is not so recognized the nomination of candidate (s) set up by that party in such other State will also be required to be subscribed by ten (ten) electors of the constituency, as proposers.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. The said candidate had not subscribed 10 electors as proposers in part-II of form 2 while filing his nomination papers and has failed to fulfill the requirements laid down under rules, his nomination papers on this ground cannot be accepted.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. As such for the foregoing reason the nomination papers filed by Mohd Saleem son of Mohd Sharief Khan R/o Bhella Tehsil Kotranka are hereby rejected. His security deposit amounting to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand ) is also released.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The remaining nine candidates thus were left in the fray. Respondent Puran Singh secured 11,832 votes as against him the petitioner secured 11,615 votes. The other candidates in the fray secured only 2285/-, 5144,911,7870,805,470 and 1181 votes out of total of 42,116 valid votes counted. Respondent Puran Singh having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected from 82 Darhal constituency.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. The name of respondent No. 11 election Commission of India was deleted from the array of respondents on the application of Election Commission of India on the plea that he is not a necessary party. The notices were issued to the other respondents under registered covers, but the same were not received back served or unserved despite expiry of statutory period, their service was, therefore, deemed. On behalf of respondent No. l Puran Singh his Advocate Shri Anil Sethi entered appearance on 1.4.2003 and respondent No. 7 appeared in person. Except respondents No. 1 and 7, the other respondents were set exparte by order dated 5.4.2003. Respondents No. 1 and 7 were directed to file their counter-affidavits. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 21.8.2003 even the respondents No. 1 and 7 did not appear and hence they were also set exparte. Thus none of the respondents has filed his stance in the court for contesting election petition of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to lead exparte evidence in support of his petition. The petitioner has examined PW S/Shri Ghulam Haider Aatish, Walyat Khan, Sadiq Hussain, Mohd Din, Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din and Raja Shamus Din.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case thoroughly.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>9. The petitioner seeks to maintain his challenge to the election of respondent Puran Singh only on two grounds as contemplated by Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (for short the Act). Before dealing with the challenge under ground (b) I would take firstly the challenge under Clause (c) of Section 108. Under Clause (c) of Section 108, an election can be declared void if any nomination of a candidate has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem improperly and, therefore, whole of the election including the election of respondent Puran Singh has been vitiated. He submits that the respondent Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party. Samajwadi Party being a registered political party was entitled to field a candidate for any constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir including 82 Darhal constituency. The respondent Mohd Saleem being a candidate of Samajwadi Party was not required to be sponsored by 10 proposers being electors of the constituency, as such according to him the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer is illegal and the same renders the election of respondent Puran Singh void.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Section 44 of the Act deals with the presentation of nomination papers and requirement for valid nomination. For the purpose of this case only Sub-section (1) is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads as follows:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>44.Representation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.(1) On or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of section of Section 41 each candidate shall, in person or through an agent to be authorized in the prescribed manner, between the hours of eleven o clock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 4 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate. Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section recognized political party means a political party for which a symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Thus as per mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 quoted above a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized Political party is required to file nomination paper after the same is subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Without the ten proposers nomination paper filed by a candidate who has not been set up by a recognized political party would be an invalid nomination. The expression recognized political party has been defined in the explanation appended to the section itself to mean a political party for which symbol is reserved by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. In the present case admittedly respondent No. 9 Mohd Saleem was a candidate of Samajwadi Party and his nomination had not been subscribed by ten proposers in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1).',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. Now the question arising for consideration is what is true ambit and scope of the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1). The recognition to a political party is granted under Section 29(A) of the Central Representation of People Act, 1951 which empowers Election Commission of India to register any Association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party, as a political party which may be National Political Party or a political party of any State or States. The Samajwadi party undisputedly has not been registered as a National Party but has been registered as State party in the State of Uttar Pradesh and symbol of Bicycle has been reserved for it by the Election Commission.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. Election Commission of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 138 of J&K; read with Rules 5 and 10 of J&K; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, in suppression of its Notification No. 56/J&K;/96 dated 5.8.1996 by its notice dated 8th august 2002 issued the notification dated 8th August 2002 published in official Gazette of the State on 14th August 2002 in regard to the allotment of symbol to the candidates contesting elections.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>Clause (A) of the Notification reads:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>(A)A candidate set up by a Political Party recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mentioned in column 2 of the Table I below shall choose and shall be allotted, the reserved symbol shown against the party in column 3 of that Table and no other symbol.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. From the perusal of Table I which contains the names of the recognized political parties of the State it is manifest that name of Samajwadi party of which respondent Mohd Saleem was the candidate does not exist there. It is clear as such therefrom that Samajwadi party is not a recognized political party of the State. Clause (B) of the Notification deals with the case of a candidate who has been set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than State of Jammu and Kashmir. It provides:',
	(int) 25 => '<p>If a candidate set up by a registered party recognized by the Election Commission of India in any State or States other than Jammu and Kashmir under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 (included in Table II below) intends to choose or chooses the symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized as a State Party, such candidate shall be allotted the symbol to the exclusion of any other candidate and no other symbol, on fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:- (i).... (ii) .... (iii)',
	(int) 26 => '<p>17. Thus under the above clauses if a political party which is recognized in any other State except the State of Jammu and Kashmir fields a candidate such candidate is entitled to choose the same symbol reserved for it in the State or States in which it has been recognized.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>18. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a candidate who has been set up by a political party recognized in any State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to the same symbol which has been recognized for it in the State in which it is recognized meaning thereby that it can field a candidate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also and if it does so its candidate is entitled to the same symbol which has been reserved by Election Commission of India for such party. He argues that the expression recognized political party used in Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act includes a political party which has been recognized in any other State even if not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>19. I am not in agreement with Mr. Gupta. In terms of the above quoted notification a candidate of political party not recognized in the State of Jammu is entitled only to be allotted the same symbol which has been reserved for it in the State or States in which it is recognized. So far as holding of elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, they are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957. For the purpose of this Act the expression recognized political party can only mean recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision in the Act which entitles a political party not recognized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to set up a candidate as a party candidate. For the purpose of the election in Jammu and Kashmir a candidate set up by such a party has necessarily to fulfill the requirement of first proviso to Section 44 of having his nomination papers subscribed by 10 proposers, being electors of the constituency. The intention of the legislature is manifest. The legislature by enacting the first proviso to Section 44 intended to create a restriction on unrecognized Political Party for setting up a candidate in the State, as its party candidate that nomination of its candidate must be subscribed by 10 proposers who are electors of the constituency. Therefore, the first ground of challenge taken by the petitioner to challenge the election of respondent Puran Singh fails.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>20. The 2nd ground of challenge set up by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent Puran Singh is that his election is vitiated because he is guilty of corrupt practices.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>21. It is well settled principle that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as in criminal trials as has been held in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR1059 and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. : AIR1991SC2001 . The case of the petitioner firstly is that respondent Puran Singh contested the election on a Watch symbol. The symbol reserved for National Congress Party is a clock. The similarity between the two symbols namely, watch and clock has misled the voters on account of which respondent No. 4 could secure 238 votes more than the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that identical symbol should not have been claimed by the respondent Puran Singh and it is only on the basis of similarity in the two aforesaid symbols he had obtained more votes in his favour as the voters had been misled by considering the respondent Puran Singh to be a candidate of National Congress Party. I do not agree with the contention raised. Watch and clock are two different objects and there cannot be any similarity between the two except on the point that both reflect the time. In view of the difference in the shape of watch and clock there cannot be any question of voters being misled. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Puran Singh spread communal hatred between the voters and encashed the same by way of votes in his favour.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>22. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. PW Ghulam Haider has stated that Respondent has been spreading hatred between Gujars and Paharis and obtained more than one hundred votes from his village. P.W Walyat Khan deposed Respondent inflamed the sentiments of Gujars and Paharis and on being influenced by hatred spread many people captured the polling booth and did not allow voters to vote. PW Sadiq Hussain stated that respondent projected him to be the representative of Paharis. PW Gulam Mohi-ud-Din and P.W. Raja Shamus Din also deposed that Respondent obtained votes by creating a wedge between Gujjars and Paharis. Besides this all the witnesses including PW Mohd Din have also deposed that they and many other voters had cast vote in favour of respondent by taking him to be the candidate of NCP Party because of his watch symbol. The allegations made in the evidence against respondent No. 4 are vague and are of general character. None of these witnesses has indicated in his evidence as to in what manner the respondent Puran Singh has spread the communal hatred towards a particular class of the voters. None of them has come forward to say that as to when and at what place the respondent Puran Singh did such act which resulted into spreading of that kind of hatred which was encashed by him in terms of votes. On the basis of the said evidence it cannot be said that respondent Puran Singh indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation of corrupt practice has not cogently been proved by the petitioner against respondent Puran Singh. Therefore, the second ground of challenge also fails. There is no merit in this election petition of the petitioner. It is as such dismissed.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Election Commission of India.<p>',
	(int) 33 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 34
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109