My nomination form was rejected for a frivolous reason, by the Returning officer of Mumbai North-Central. On the same day, same office of the election Comission, this Shivsena man was cleared and declared a Candidate, though his default was 100 times more than mine.
My agenda is
REFORM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Police is only part of it, It includes Lawyers and Judiciary
Read full at http://www.RoguePolice.com/myagenda.htm
Who is responsible for getting my form rejected at : http://www.RoguePolice.com/sunday.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduced from Sunday Times April 12, 2009 Page 5
Drama at Bandra collectorate over Sena man’s form
Yogesh Naik I TNN
Mumbai: The suburban collectorate at Bandra witnessed high drama on Saturday.
The Congress objected to a form left incomplete by Gajanan Kirtikar, Shiv Sena candidate for Mumbai North West. Kirtikar and Congress’s Gurudas Kamat are locked in a battle for the stretch from Andheri to Malad. Soon after Kirtikar filed his nomination on April 9, the Congress realised that the Sena candidate’s form was incomplete. When the scrutiny started on Saturday morning, Kamat’s election agent Amarjitsingh Manhas,
said Kirtikar had not filled up form 3A of the nomination paper and not signed it. Congress workers gathered at the Bandra collector’s office and briefed the media about the goof-up. Manhas told TOI, “We have demanded that the form be rejected.’’ An Independent candidate, Tanaji Kakade, added that Kirtikar had also not filed and signed the Part III (D) of the nomination paper.
These objections sent shivers down the Sena as they feared that the candidature could be rejected, said a source. Sena MLC and vibhagpramukh Anil Parab, who appeared for Kirtikar, said, “I told the returning officer that the objections could not disqualify him. In addition, Kirtikar had signed the affidavit where details of crime cases where given. There was no motive to hide information.’’
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.
Petition against order of Returning Officer sent to the Chief Election Commissioner of India, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001 demanding Justice against illegal rejection of my nomination form and right to challenge, the entire election process for Mumbai North Central Constituency, within 45 days after the result is declared, in accordance with the law.
10. That 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. However the Returning officer declined to allow that and stated that we will have to reject your Nomination form.
11. That I pleaded with him and showed him the EXHIBITS A-D and also the 2 affidavits, but he refused to relent, stating I am rejecting your nomination and you can approach the Courts. Copy of my nomination form is attached as EXHIBIT E.Even both my affidavits, start with : Nomination Paper, Before the Returning Officer, For Election to Parliament, from Mumbai North Central Constituency.
-------Received certified copy of order on 13.4.2009 at 2.30 pm -------
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”... Signed by Returning officer on 11.4.2009.
See images of Exhibits, which I showed him http://www.roguepolice.com/nomination/proof.htm My explanations below:
Indur Chhugani :
Falls under rule 9.6. I had filed 2 Affidavits, which clearly mentioned : AFFIDAVIT BY CANDIDATE, ALONGWITH NOMINATION PAPER, Before the Returning Officer, For election to Parliament, From Mumbai North-Central Constituency.
Had appeared and filed Nomination before Returning Officer, who was in charge of ONLY Mumbai North Central Constituency …. All receipts he gave me, clearly mention, Receipt for nomination Paper and notice for scrutiny. It states “The nomination paper of Indur Kartar Chhugani a candidate for election from the 29 Mumbai North Central Parliament Constituency was delivered to me at my office at 01.52 pm on 09.04.2009 by the Candidate”.
Four more receipts, issued by the Returning Officer Confirm, I was candidate from Mumbai North Central.
Gajanan Kirtikar,
Shiv Sena candidate for Mumbai North West.
Falls under rule 10.1: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.
The man, who rejected my Nomination is:
Shri. Mahendra Warbhuvan ( Returning Officer )
022 22663453 ... Mobile: 9869444157
( this is the Returning officer, who rejected my nomination form under 9.6 and cleared Gajanan Kirtikar under 10.1, he is the boss of Dr Ashwini Joshi )
Reproduced from Returning Officers Handbook
Guidelines by the Election Commission: These are the laws.
Page 66.
What may be treated as defects of substantial nature
9.6 Though, it depends on various factors but some of the defects of substantial nature and which can not be allowed to be corrected at the stage of preliminary scrutiny by the RO are (a) failure to declare age in the nomination paper; (b) failure to sign the nomination paper by the candidate or any of his proposers in the manner prescribed; (c) failure to comply with requirement to produce of being a registered elector where a candidate is contesting election from a different constituency; (d) failure to submit written authorization form from the political party, within prescribed time and in prescribed, where a candidate claims to have been set up by a national or state party. Other cases are (a) Failure to mention name of constituency, particularly in the General election;(b) Failure to give full address in nomination paper (c) Failure to file affidavit in FORM 26 and/or affidavit by ECI for disclosing antecedent, assets, liabilities and educational qualification. 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.
GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPERS
10.1 You must reject a nomination paper if-
(IX) The nomination paper has not been signed by the candidate and/or by the required number of his proposer (s)
There is simply no law in Returning Officers Handbook, through which my momination could be rejected, but my nomination was Rejected
But there was a law (10.1 ) through which the Nomination form of Shivsena candidate had to be rejected, but his nomination was Cleared.
Lawyers can do anything and get away with it. Everyone knows that.Email: ikchhugani@yahoo.com Mobile: 098201 71571
Mumbai North - Central ... Plus points of 3 Candidates
join in at Facebook
Indur Chhugani for Parliament
Citizens Policing the Police is a MUST ...Need of the day
Corruption in India,Mumbai,happy,health,Corruption,police,delhi,Bombay,chennai,dubai,constittution,
elderly,corruption,control,bangalore,calcutta,pune,lucknow,change,sessions,court,high court,Supreme court,improve,justice,courts,hafta,chhugani,Chhugani, Pratibha Patil,Rajnikant,verdict,criminal,
system,senior citizens,Times of India,High Court,Supreme Court of India,judgement,
Harish Shetty,Shilpa Shetty,Bandra,Khar,Brown Sugar,Drugs,Sindhi,Xavier College,Stephrns College,Starplus,Jethmalani,memon,Dawood,BharatShah,Barkha,ndtv,Bribes,Infosys,Cnn,Aajtak,Zee,Gandhi, Sabharwal,Jessica Lal
