Driving Naari Programme launched in Chandigarh
Chandigarh/Ropar
Less than three hours after the returning officer rejected nomination papers filed by Aam Aadmi Party’s Anandpur Sahib candidate Narinder Singh Shergill, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday quashed the order.
Shergill was debarred from contesting the election by the Election Commission of India for not submitting details of election expenditure incurred by him during previous elections, following which he moved the High Court on April 30.
Allowing the plea late this evening after hearing the matter for almost four hours, the Division Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Sudhir Mittal asserted: “After hearing the arguments raised by counsel for the parties and perusal of the record available, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order (of rejection) dated April 30 and June 7, 2018, are set aside. The nomination papers of the petitioner be accepted in case the same is otherwise in order.”
The Bench, on the previous date of hearing, had directed Election Commission of India and another respondent to provisionally scrutinise Shergill’s nomination papers. But Anandpur Sahib’s Returning officer-cum-Ropar deputy commissioner Sumeet Jarangal this afternoon rejected Shergill’s nomination papers.
Appearing on Shergill’s behalf, senior advocate Akshay Bhan and Amandeep Singh Talwar submitted that the petitioner furnished “accounts” to the District Election Officer, which were duly scrutinised. The officer even “agreed” with the amount shown by the candidate against all items of expenditure, as required. Punjab Chief Electoral Officer S Karuna Raju was present during the course of hearing.
The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Shergill did not furnish the “accounts”. The EC, in fact, gave at least three opportunities to him, but the required documents were not submitted. He did not furnish the details even after the issuance of a notice.
Responding to the submissions, Bhan argued that deficiencies, if any, were never pointed out to Shergill. He was, in any case, informed late about the developments. “Just because I (AAP) am in the opposition, you rejected my nomination at very last moment so that AAP could not be elected. It’s a democratic country. Why are you afraid of?” Bhan added on Shergill’s behalf.
Bhan had earlier contended that the petitioner had submitted nomination papers for Anandpur Sahib parliamentary constituency on April 29. It was to be taken up for scrutiny the next day and the petitioner appeared through his representative. But an oral intimation was sent that the “representation” filed by him had been dismissed on April 29 itself. He further added the order of rejection was, however, handed over to him on April 30.
