IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the election to raise necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such averments as would enable the result of the election being set aside.

Headnote:(i) Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 8, 33 and 36-Presentation of nomination paper-Requirements for a valid nomination-Variation of name in voters list-Respondent was a duly enrolled voter in voters list-In voters list as well as in nomination paper respondent was correctly described-Omission of his second name Lal from voters list is inadvertent or accidental-No doubt about identity of respondent-Respondent held not disqualified.
       Held : On the face of the nomination paper the respondent was not disqualified in any manner. The returning officer satisfied himself as to the identity of the respondent and, the electoral roll of the constituency, which was available with him to be seen, pointed out only an inconsequential technical variation in description, as already stated hereinabove. If the contention of the appellant is that the respondent was not an elector of the constituency and his nomination paper was therefore liable to be rejected for failure to file a certified copy of entries of the relevant electoral roll, then it was for the appellant to raise that objection so as to put the returning officer on notice, who in his turn could have afforded the respondent an opportunity of meeting the objection. Clearly there is no merit in the plea raised by the appellant. (Para 17)
       (ii) Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 8, 33 and 36-Presentation of nomination paper-Mere failure of appellant in raising objection to validity of nomination paper filed by respondent before returning officer does not stop or exclude election petitioner from raising a plea before High Court. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-An election, to choose one member to the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly from 23 Ramgarh Assembly Constituency, was held in the month of January-February 2001 to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of the then sitting member. Though there were more than two candidates in the election fray, the legal battle in the Court arena has continued only between the appellant and the respondent, the two out of the several candidates, in the backdrop of the controversy arising for decision. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by the returning officer. He could not participate in the elections. The respondent was declared elected on 23.2.2001. An election petition, laying challenge to the election of the respondent and seeking setting aside of his election, was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The facts relevant for the purpose of appreciating the issues arising for decision in this appeal, are briefly set out hereunder.

2. As per the election programme notified by the Election Commission of India, the nomination papers could be filed on January 25, 2001 through January 31, 2001 between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. before the returning officer who was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ramgarh. The scrutiny of the nominations took place on February 1, 2001. February 3, 2001 was the date for withdrawal of nomination, if any. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by reference to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act , for short) for failure of the appellant to furnish certain information in a prescribed proforma supported by an affidavit, stating as to whether the petitioner was not disqualified to contest the election due to any conviction for committing any offence as required under Section 8 of the Act. The prescribed proforma for furnishing the information and the form of affidavit, though supplied to the petitioner by the returning officer, were not filed up to the date and time appointed for scrutiny of nominations. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the controversy stands resolved by a recent decision of this Court in Shaligram Shrivastava vs. Naresh Singh Patel, (2003) 2 SCC 176. The appellant appearing in-person has very fairly stated that he does not want to pursue any further this plea, disputing the rejection of his nomination paper, in view of the abovesaid decision of this Court.

3. The next controversy, and now the only one surviving for decision, is as to whether the nomination paper filed by the respondent suffered from any defect of a substantial character. Inasmuch as this issue has been highlighted by the appellant from very many angles, it would be useful to reproduce and set out from the averments made in the election petition itself as to what the appellant s case is. According to the appellant-

"The returning officer ought to have rejected the nomination papers of the respondent on the following grounds:-

(a) That the respondent s name is Babulal . His surname is Marandi. He is known, recognized, addressed and identified every where by this name Babulal Marandi alone and not by any other name or surname whatsoever.

The name of the respondent Babu Lal Marandi has not been enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of any Assembly constituency of Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand State.

He has not filed certified copy of any Assembly constituency of Jharkhand Legislature to the Returning Officer either at the time of filing his nomination papers or at the time of scrutiny showing therein that his name Babu Lal Marandi has been registered as an elector in that Assembly Constituency. Thus, the respondent is not competent to contest the said election. His nomination papers filed to the returning officer suffer from a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and they ought to have been rejected by the Returnin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1069

IMPORTANT POINTThe burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the election to raise necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such averments as would enable the result of the election being set aside.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the election to raise necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such averments as would enable the result of the election being set aside.