To, Chief Election Commissioner of India,
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
Subject: Demand for justice against
rejection of my nomination paper by the Returning
Officer illegally for Mumbai North-Central
Constituency.
Respected Sir,
My Nomination form was rejected by the Returning
Officer on 11.4.2009, for Mumbai North-Central
Constituency, illegally citing a frivolous reason.
During scrutiny I was seated in the 1st row, facing
the Returning Officer Mr Mahendra Warbhuvan, when my
form came up for Scrutiny, I heard the officer
telling the Returning officer that this candidate has
left the first column blank, where it should have
been entered “Mumbai North Central”. I
immediately requested to be allowed to enter the 3
words in the first line. Also I pointed out that both
my affidavits clearly state that,( attached Copy of
affidavit as Annexure A ) I am contesting from Mumbai
North Central Constituency and the very fact that I
filed nomination before him on 5th Floor of the
Adminstrative Building reconfirmed that fact, as he
was the Returning officer of ONLY the Mumbai North
Central Constituency and pleaded, it was only a minor
clerical error. However the Returning officer
declined to allow me to enter the 3 words
“Mumbai North Central” and wrote down the
Order immediately and declared “I have already
passed the order rejecting your Nomination, you can
approach the Court”.
None of the other candidates or their representatives
objected to my plea, to being allowed to enter the 3
crucial words “Mumbai North Central”.
Immediately after the process was over, for all
candidates, I demanded to know, under what law my
nomination was rejected and I was shown, a single
highlighted line in para 9.6 on page 66 of the
returning officers handbook. I pointed out to the
last 3 lines at the end of the para, which read as
“These are just illustrative examples. You
should thoroughly check facts of each case with your
understanding of legal provisions and judicial
decisions on the matter and decide accordingly”.
I was told by the Returning officer, that “I
have already passed the order and only remedy you
have is to file a election petition in the High
Court”.
Thereafter at 12.30 pm on 11.4.2009 I made an
application, for a certified copy of the order, to
enable me to move the High Court immediately. However
I was made to wait till 5 pm and finally told to come
back on morning of 13.4.2009. On Monday morning at
10.15 am I sent SMS to the Returning Officer, to keep
copy of the certified order copy ready. However when
I went to the office of the Returning officer, I was
kept waiting. I gave another application at 1 pm and
then was finally given the “certified copy”
of the order at 2.30 pm. It was too late, to move the
court, as the final list of the candidates after
allotment of symbols, was to be ready by 5 pm that
very day. My application for certified copy, attached
as Annexure B
The Rejection Order Reads “Since in the
Parliamentary Constituency column, the candidate
filing nomination has not mentioned the name of the
Constituency, from which he intends to contest and
since it’s a defect of substantial nature the
nomination paper is rejected” … Xerox of
Certified copy of order is attached as ANNEXURE
C ( available at http://www.RoguePolice.com/nomination/proof.htm )
The facts
stated above show malafide and bias against
me, for what reason, I am not aware, but it
may be at the behest of some interested
party, who does not want me to contest this
election from this constituency.
I have consulted legal
experts thereafter and discovered, there is no law
under which my Nomination Form should have been
rejected, as a matter of fact the Election
Commission has issued a warning to Returning
Officers, in the “Handbook for Returning
Officers” under section 9.4 on page 65 “In
the past, there were instances where nomination
papers were rejected on flimsy grounds, e.g. for
mistakes made in the nomination paper regarding; (a)
the year of election, or (b) the exact name of the
House of the Legislature or the constituency, (c) the
description of an electoral roll number, or (d) the
choice of symbols, or (e) some discrepancy between
the age, name, or other particulars of the candidate
or his proposer as given in the nomination paper and
in the electoral roll and so on. Such unjustifiable
and improper orders of rejection on technical grounds
had led to a large number of election petitions and
the eventual setting aside of several elections with
consequent avoidable waste of time, money and labour
for all concerned. Similar instances
of improper rejections should not occur again”.
Further I was surprised to read in the Times Of India
on 12.4.2009, that a Nomination Form of Mr Gajanand
Kirtikar a Shivsena candidate from Mumbai North West,
was cleared by the Returning Officer, at the same
Bandra Office, being supervised by the same Central
Observers, inspite of crucial signature missing from
the Nomination Form, the order of Returning Officer
as per Times of India report reads “In the
order, the returning officer, Dr Ashwini Joshi said
not filling up a form III A and III (D) and then not
signing it is not valid grounds for rejection of
nomination”. Now this is an error 100s of times
more grave and falls under rule 10.1 (IX) and the
Returning officer has no option but to reject the
Nomination form, as stated in the “Handbook for
Returning Officers”. Copy of Times report as
Annexure D.
In view of the above, with a copy of this letter, I
will try to meet Secretary And Chief Electoral
Officer, Maharashtra, General Administration
Department, 5th floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-4000 32 and
convince him, to include my name,as an candidate,
even at this late stage in the forthcoming Elections
to the Parliament, for which polling is on 30.4.2009.
Please note that if my grievance is not redressed
immediately and the deliberate illegal action/mistake
of rejecting my nomination form made by Returning
Officer Mr Mahendra Warbhuvan is not rectified
promptly, I reserve the right to file an appropriate
petition in accordance with the law, to ask the court
for countermanding the election of the Mumbai North
Central Constituency.
Further
please note that I reserve the right to
challenge, the entire election process to
this constituency and make the Election
Commission and the Returning Officer Mr
Mahendra Warbhuvan responsible as to the
costs and consequences. Therefore I fervently
appeal to you, to ensure that this Returning
Officer does not dispose off his unmovable
and movable assets, which are in his name or
those in the names of his close family
members.
I have much more
evidence to prove, that since the the first day I
stepped in his office on 9.4.2009, this Returning
Officer was fully aware that I was a candidate for
Mumbai North Central, or else he would have driven me
out immediately and he has acknowledged that fact in
numerous receipts, he has given me. Further all
proceedings were recorded on video by the Election
commission officials.
Trust justice will prevail,
Yours faithfully,
Indur Chhugani
Mobile 098201 71571
CC: 1. Secretary And Chief Electoral Officer,
Maharashtra, General Administration Department, 5th
floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-4000 32.
2. The Central Observers, for Mumbai North Central
Constituency, Election Commission of India, Bandra E.
I can file "Election
Petition" for setting aside the
election for Mumbai North-Central, within
45 days after the election results are
delared. My petition is almost ready, all
that I am waiting for is, some documents
from the Returning Officer, which I have
demanded through RTI on 13.4.2009. As
soon as we receive those documents, the
Election Petition will be filed.
There is a need to
wait for the election result. Election
petition can be filed only after result
is declared and someone is elected.