(Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar ___________________________ Appellant;
v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal _______________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No(s). 20825-20826/2017, decided on December 8, 2017
(IA No. 131135/2017-Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 131136/2017-Permission to File Lengthy List of Dates and IA No. 131137/2017-Stay Application and IA No. 131138/2017-Exemption From Filing O.T.)
Civil Appeal No(s). 20825-20826/2017; IA No. 131135/2017; IA No. 131136/2017; IA No. 131137/2017; and IA No. 131138/2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Admit.
3. As the respondent-caveator, the election petitioner before the High Court, has entered appearance, we have taken up the prayer for consideration of the interim relief.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Salve that the learned Single Judge of the High Court, while dealing with assail to the election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative Assembly, has not kept in view the concept of consistency of evidence and, in a way, has placed reliance on inadmissible evidence. He would further submit that there is enough material on record to come to a definite conclusion that the appellant was within the premises of the Returning Officer and the nomination paper was filed within time, i.e. 3:00 p.m.
5. Be it noted, learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the election on two grounds, viz., the nomination was filed belatedly and the original affidavit was not filed along with the form. We may hasten to add here that the learned Single Judge has also returned the finding that the two forms were in order. It is not in dispute that multiple nomination forms can be filed by a candidate, but the said forms, though accepted by the Returning Officer, have been treated to be invalid by the High Court, singularly on the ground that they were filed beyond 3:00 p.m.
6. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator, opposing the prayer for interim relief, contended that the High Court has perused the C.D. and has also taken note of the evidence on record to come to a definite conclusion that the nomination papers were not submitted within time and, hence the finding recorded and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with.
7. After bestowing our anxious consideration on the submissions canvassed and upon careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion, it is a fit case where the impugned judgment and order should be stayed and, accordingly, it is so ordered.
8. Let the matter be listed in the first week of March, 2018, for final disposal.
———
