Bhopal: The Election Commission has issued a notice to BJP nominee from Narela constituency, Vishwas Sarang after he reportedly gave Rs one lakh to a Jain temple here on October 27 when the model code of conduct was in force in the poll-bound state.
The EC, in its notice issued to the BJP candidate yesterday, said that it had received information that the model code of conduct for polls had come in force from October four but Sarang had given money during a function at the Jain temple on October 27.
The Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in Madhya Pradesh on November 25.
The commission has given time to Sarang till 11.30 AM on November 15 to reply to its notice and explain why action should not be taken against him.
In case Sarang fails to reply, the commission will assume that he has nothing to say and will proceed to take appropriate action against him.
During the visit to the temple, the BJP nominee had said that he had promised to offer flowers when its construction was being carried out. He had also said that he paid Rs one lakh from his side for the temple.
The counsel for the MPs, however, contended that under the Constitution, the Speaker is expected to give a reason while rejecting the resignations and since no grounds were given they had no other remedy than to move the court.
The counsel also contended that the decision was arbitrary as the Speaker did not make any enquiry to find out whether their resignations were genuine and voluntary.
Apart from the three YSR Congress MPs, nine others from Indian National Congress and one from Telugu Desam Party had tendered their resignations, the petitioner’s counsel said.
Seeking a court order directing the Speaker to accept their resignations, the petitioners said they were not contacted by the Speaker “to ascertain whether the letters were voluntary or genuine, thereby showing that Respondent 2 (Speaker) had no intention of accepting the resignations.
“These rejections are contrary to both Article 101 of the Constitution as well as Rule 240 of the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha because there has been no basic verification of whether the resignations are voluntary or genuine,” the MPs have said in their petition.
In the plea, the petitioners said, “The Respondent 2 (Speaker) has not abide by the Constitution or Rule 240 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure to verify whether the letters of resignation may not be voluntary or genuine. As these are the only grounds on which a resignation may not be accepted, it was necessary for such an exercise to be undertaken to satisfy Respondent 2.
