1. Election dispute under Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 — Challenge to candidate's eligibility based on inclusion in the electoral roll. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 252
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th July, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, K SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
B. M. Ramaswamy, Appellant
Versus
B. M. Krishnamurthy and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1962. 459
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Vedantiengar, Advocate and Mr. S. N. Andley, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Appellant.
Writ Petn. No. 814 of 1961, D/-2-8-1961-Mys.
Important Points
Civil courts are barred under Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, from questioning the legality of an electoral registration officer's actions. Illegal inclusion of a name in the electoral roll does not render a candidate unqualified if their name appears in the list.
Subject
Election Law - Local Body Elections
Act Referred
MYSORE VILLAGE PANCHAYATS AND LOCAL BOARDS ACT: S.10, S.13, S.9
Headnote
(A) Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 - Sections 9, 10 and 13 - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Sections 23, 24 and 30 - Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1956 - Rules 26 and 27 - Inclusion of name in electoral roll - Legality of action by Electoral Registration Officer - Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts - Under Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of the electoral registration officer. Even if the procedure prescribed for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll is not followed, such action is not a nullity but merely illegal, and the remedy lies in preferring an appeal or other appropriate legal remedy, not in a civil court. (Para 9)
(B) Qualification for Election - Under Section 10 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Panchayat constituency shall, unless disqualified under the Act or any other law, be qualified to be elected as a member of the Panchayat. If a candidate's name is present in the list of voters, the nomination cannot be considered improperly accepted under Section 13(3)(A)(d)(i) of the Act, regardless of whether the inclusion of the name in the list was illegal. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
An election was conducted for a Panchayat constituency where the appellant was declared elected. The first respondent filed an election petition seeking a declaration that the appellant was not duly elected on the grounds that the appellant's name was not in the authenticated list of voters and that the appellant was not an ordinary resident of the constituency. The trial court found the appellant to be a resident but set aside the election on the finding that the name was not in the authenticated list. The High Court upheld the decision, reasoning that the appellant's name had been included in the electoral roll in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Representation of the People Rules, 1956, rendering the inclusion void.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's name was included in the electoral roll before the date of nomination. While the electoral registration officer failed to follow the prescribed procedure for posting the application and inviting objections, this non-compliance did not affect the officer's jurisdiction nor did it render the act a nullity. The court further noted that the first respondent had admitted in the petition that the appellant's name was in the authenticated list.
Issues: Whether the election of a candidate can be set aside on the ground that their name was illegally included in the electoral roll, and whether a civil court has the jurisdiction to question the legality of such inclusion by the electoral registration officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, creates a statutory bar preventing civil courts from questioning the legality of actions taken by the electoral registration officer. Since the appellant's name appeared in the list of voters, the appellant was qualified for election under Section 10 of the local Act. The improper procedure for inclusion does not make the act non est, and there is no provision in the Act enabling the court to set aside an election solely on the ground that a name was illegally included in the voters list.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Qualification for Election - Under Section 10 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Panchayat constituency shall, unless disqualified under the Act or any other law, be qualified to be elected as a member of the Panchayat. If a candidate's name is present in the list of voters, the nomination cannot be considered improperly accepted under Section 13(3)(A)(d)(i) of the Act, regardless of whether the inclusion of the name in the list was illegal. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
An election was conducted for a Panchayat constituency where the appellant was declared elected. The first respondent filed an election petition seeking a declaration that the appellant was not duly elected on the grounds that the appellant's name was not in the authenticated list of voters and that the appellant was not an ordinary resident of the constituency. The trial court found the appellant to be a resident but set aside the election on the finding that the name was not in the authenticated list. The High Court upheld the decision, reasoning that the appellant's name had been included in the electoral roll in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Representation of the People Rules, 1956, rendering the inclusion void.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's name was included in the electoral roll before the date of nomination. While the electoral registration officer failed to follow the prescribed procedure for posting the application and inviting objections, this non-compliance did not affect the officer's jurisdiction nor did it render the act a nullity. The court further noted that the first respondent had admitted in the petition that the appellant's name was in the authenticated list.
Issues: Whether the election of a candidate can be set aside on the ground that their name was illegally included in the electoral roll, and whether a civil court has the jurisdiction to question the legality of such inclusion by the electoral registration officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, creates a statutory bar preventing civil courts from questioning the legality of actions taken by the electoral registration officer. Since the appellant's name appeared in the list of voters, the appellant was qualified for election under Section 10 of the local Act. The improper procedure for inclusion does not make the act non est, and there is no provision in the Act enabling the court to set aside an election solely on the ground that a name was illegally included in the voters list.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
B.Vedanta lyengar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.N.ANDLEY
B.Vedanta lyengar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.N.ANDLEY
Table of Contents
2. Whether illegal inclusion of a name in the electoral roll renders a nomination void and whether civil courts can question such inclusion under the Representation of the People Act. (Para 7 )
3. Procedural non-compliance by a registration officer renders an action illegal but not a nullity, and such legality is barred from civil court scrutiny under Section 30. (Para 9 )
4. Appeal allowed and election petition dismissed. (Para 12 )
5. Can a civil court question the legality of an action taken by an electoral registration officer regarding the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll?
No. Under Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the jurisdiction of civil courts to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of the electoral registration officer is barred. (Para 9 )
6. Does non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for including a name in the electoral roll render the registration officer's action a nullity?
No. Non-compliance with procedural rules renders the action illegal but not a nullity, as the officer possesses the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Such actions must be rectified through prescribed appeals or other legal remedies. (Para 9 )
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute in respect of the election to the Panchayat of Byappanahalli, from its firs constituency, in the State of Mysore.
2. The calendar of events for the said election was as follows:
Notification of election ... 6-2-1960
Date by which candidates has to file nomination papers ... 16-3-1960
Date of scrutiny of nomination papers ... 18-3-1960
Poll ... 13-4-1960
Declaration of result ... 14-4-1960
The appellant and five others filed their nomination papers within the prescribed date. The polling took place on the schedules date, namely, April 13, 1960.
The candidates secured votes as mentioned under:
Appellant ...169 votes
Respondent 2 ...158 votes
Respondent 1 ...128 votes
Respondent 3 ...115 votes
Respondent 4 ... 38 votes
Respondent 5 ... 46 votes
The appellant and respondent 2 were duly declared elected to the Panchayat.
3. Respondent 1 filed an election petition under S. 13 of the MYSORE VILLAGE PANCHAYATS AND LOCAL BOARDS ACT , 1959 (Mysore Act No. 10 of 1959), hereinafter called the Act in the Court of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore, for a declaration that the appellant was not duly elected and for a further declaration that the first respondent was duly elected. The case of the first respondent, as disclosed in his petition, was that on the date fixed for filing of nominations the appellant s name was not in the authenticated list of voters published under R. 3, cl. (5) of the Mysore Panchayats and Taluk Boards Election Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules, and, therefore, he was not entitled to file his nomination. It was his further case that the appellant was not ordinarily a resident of Byappanahalli and, therefore, he was disqualified from standing for the election from that constituency.
4. The learned Munsiff held on the second point that the appellant was ordinarily a resident of the said village and was, therefore, qualified to be included in the electoral roll of the Panchayat, but he came to the conclusion that his name was not included in the authenticated list of voters of the said Panchayat. On that finding he set aside the election of the appellant and declared the first respondent, who secured the next highest number of votes, to have been duly elected in. his place.
5. On appeal, the learned Judges of the High Court, after noticing the finding of the Munsiff to the effect that the appellant s name was not included in the authenticated list of voters for the Panchayat, observed that they did not agree with the reasoning given by the learned Munsiff, but they agreed with his conclusion on the basis of a different reasoning. They held that though the name of the appellant was included before the prescribed date in the electoral roll of the legislative constituency under S. 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, It was so included in direct violation of R.26 of the Representation of the People Rules, 1956, and that, therefore the said inclusion was void. Having so held, they agreed with the learned Munsiff that the appellant s election was liable to be set aside. Hence the appeal. It may be mentioned that there was no appearance on the side of the respondents.
6. Before considering the point raised it will be convenient to clear the ground Section 9 of the Act reads:
"The electoral roll of the Mysore Legislative Assembly for the time being in force for such part of the constituency of the Assembly as is included in any Panchayat constituency shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the list of voters for such Panchayat constituency. The Secretary of the Panchayat shall maintain in the prescribed manner a list of voters for each Panchayat constituency. Explanation,-For the purpose of this section, electoral roll shall mean an electoral roll prepared under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Central Act XLIII of 1950) for the rime being in force."
Section 10 says,
"Every person whose name is in t
