Arun Kumar v. Delhi Bharati Chikitsa Parishad And ORS
Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
/ $-50 & 52 *
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10112/2017 PRADEEP RANA Petitioner Through Mr.Prag Chawla, Mr.Sandeep and Mr.S.Shokeen, Advocates.
versus DELHI BHARATI CHIKITSA PARISHAD AND ORS Respondents Through Mr.Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel with Mr.Sandeepan Pathak, Adv. for GNCTD.
Dr.Vijay Kumar, Returning Officer in person.
+ W.P.(C) 10122/2017 ARUN KUMAR Petitioner Through Mr.Prag Chawla, Mr.Sandeep and Mr.S.Shokeen, Advocates.
versus DELHI BHARATI CHIKITSA PARISHAD AND ORS Respondents Through Mr.Varun Nishchal, Advocate for GNCTD.
Dr.Vijay Kumar, Returning Officer in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
ORDER
% 15.1L2017
C.M. No.41329/2017 (exemption) in W.P.(0 10112/2017 C.M. No.41344/2017 (exemption) in W.P.(0 10122/2017 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications disposed of.
W.P.(a 10112/2017 & C.M. No.41328/2017 W.P.(a 10122/2017 & C.M. No.41343/2017 There are two petitioners before this Court.
Pradeep Rana in WP(C) No.lOl 12/2017 and Arun Kumar in WP(C) No. 10122/2017. They are both aggrieved by the fact that their names have not been considered for the purposes of nomination to the post of members of the respondent no.1 Parishad.
Without delving into further details this Court notes that the Returning Officer had rejected the nominations of the aforenoted two petitioners for discrepancies in the name of the proposer qua the first candidate and certain over-writings qua the second candidate. The matter had been passed over in the pre-punch hour. It has now been listed in the post lunch hour. The record of the Department has been requisitioned. The Returning Officer is present. In WP(C) 10112/2017 the Returning Officer had rejected the candidature of the petitioner noting that the address of the proposer Dr.Balraj Singh Gehlawat did not match the record available with the Returning Officer.
The same has been perused.
The name of the proposer is Dr.Balraj Singh Gehlawat.
In the nomination paper his address has been shown and Village and P.O. Mitraon, New Delhi whereas in the record of the Returning Officer the address is the same but the number of the house has been detailed. This is not a material
discrepancy which would disentitle the name of the petitioner to be considered for the purposes of nomination.
In WP(C)10122/2017 the candidiature of Arun Kumar has been rejected for certain over-writings.
The said over-writings have been perused.
They appear to be minor in nature.
There is no reason why the name of the aforenoted petitioner i.e. Arun Kumar also be not considered for nomination to the post of member of respondent no.1. Accordingly it is ordered that the names of the aforenoted two candidates be considered as nominees to the post of members of respondent no. 1.
Learned counsel for respondent at this stage points out that since the election schedule had already been carved out by the Returning Officer and the dispatch of the ballot papers has already taken today (15.11.2017) it will be a financial burden upon respondent no.l if they are asked to again afi-esh the ballot papers with the newly added candidates (namely Pradeep Rana and Arun Kumar).
The cost of the same would work out to about Rs. 1jOVjOOOZfor the dispatch of fresh ballot papers. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforenoted two petitioners (Pradeep Rana and Arun Kumar) are willing to bear the expenses in equal proportion.
Ordered accordingly.
These expenses shall be paid to respondent no. 1 latest by tomorrow.
In view of the aforenoted order passed respondent no.l is permitted to issue a corrigendum declaring the new schedule of the election.
Petitions disposed of in the above terms.
Order dasti under signatures of the CouixMaster. K INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 15, 2017 ndn