Back
1985 Supreme(SC) 197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Umed Singh Rao, Appellant
Versus
Mani Ram Godara and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4263 of 1984, D/- 8-5-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. P. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate and Mr. S. C. Patel, Advocate, for Appellant No. 1; Mr. S. N. Kacker, Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. S. Bishnoi, Mr. P. K. Sandhir, Mr. L. K. Pandey, Advocates with them, for Respondents; Mr. D. K. Garg, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Subject
Election Law - Nomination Paper Rejection
Act Referred
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT : S.99(1)(b), S.80(a), S.116(a)
Headnote
– the Supreme Court after examining the whole evidence of the appellant and the other materials on record and having analysed the judgment of the High Court, was of the view that there was no justification at all for the High Court to come to the conclusion that the conduct of the Returning Officer was most deprecable. Every Original Court is entitled – nay, duty bound – to assess or make a proper appraisement of the evidence placed before it for the purpose of disposing of the lis in connection with which such evidence is received. It is elementary to indicate that such assessment has to be fair and reasonable and every witness participating in the judicial proceedings must be assured of the position that he would be entitled to a square deal. Until justificable grounds are made out no evidence should be condemned. It was observed in the case of Umed Singh Rao v. Mani Ram Godara, AIR 1985 SC 109, that the High Court seems to have lost of the position that there is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed and the burden was on the person who pleaded to the contrary and sought a different conclusion to be reached. The Supreme Court performed and the burden was on the person who pleaded to the contrary and sought a different conclusion to be reached. The Supreme Court, having thus reversed the order and judgment of the High Court, the direction as to the costs was vacated as being unwarranted.
D.K.GARG, K.P.BHANDARI, L.K.PANDEY, Mahabir Singh, N.S.Bishnoi, P.K.SANDHIR, S.C.PATEL, S.N.KACKAR
Judgement
RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- The appellant was the Returning Officer in the by-election to Constituency No. 78 Fatehabad Assembly Constituency of Haryana State for which the election schedule was published on November 23, 1983. The last date for filing of nomination papers was November 30, 1983, and date of poll was scheduled for December 23, 1983.
2. Nomination papers were to be scrutinised on December 1, 1983. During scrutiny the appellant rejected nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak. After the election Lila Krishan was declared elected and thereupon an election petition was filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act for short) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh being Election Petition No. 1 of 1984 challenging the election of Lila Krishan.
3. In the election petition it was alleged that the rejection of the two nomination papers was without any justifying ground and on account of improper rejection of those nomination papers, the election was liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act. At the trial of the election petition the successful candidate who was a respondent in the High Court examined the appellant as R.W.3. The appellant had rejected the nomination papers on account of wrong indication of the proposers serial number in the electoral roll of the respective nomination papers. The evidence of the appellant was analysed by the High Court and the learned Judge came to hold :
"In Ex.P.1 (nomination paper of Mani Ram Chapola), the name of the proposer is tick marked. Similarly, in Ex. P.6 (nomination paper of Raj Tilak) the name of the proposer is again tick marked. In view of the express stand taken by Shri Umed Singh Rao, RW.3 (appellant), the name could not be tick marked unless found correct in accordance with the entries in the electoral rolls. After the name of the proposer was located in the electoral roll, there was no question of not finding serial numbers of the votes of both these proposers in the electoral rolls. The order of rejection passed in the case of Shri Raj Tilak has been produced in paragraph 3 above. The copy of order of rejection of the nomination paper of Shri Mani Ram Chapola is Ex. P.3 and reads as :-
S.No. of the vote of proposer does not tally with S.No. mentioned in voter list. Hence rejected.
This also goes in line with the process of tick marking as stated by Shri Umed Singh Rao RW. 3 and also admitted by the respondent (returned candidate). When this was the situation, that the name was found but it did not tally with the electoral roll number mentioned in the nomination paper the nomination paper could not be rejected as the Returning Officer could find the particulars of the proposer with the help of the election staff assisting him. During the course of the statement, Shri Umed Singh Rao tried to change the position about the order by saying : I rejected the nomination paper of Shri Mani Ram Chapola as the serial number of the electoral roll of his proposer Shri Brij Bhushan when compared with the relevant electoral roll did not contain his name. Similarly, the nomination paper of Shri Raj Tilak was rejected. because the vote number of his proposer Shri Upender Kumar as mentioned in the nomination paper when compared with the electoral roll did not contain his name there. There is a marked change in the orders passed as recorded on the nomination papers on 1st of December, 1983 and what Shri Umed Singh Rao, Returning Officer, tried to say in his statement. reproduced above. When the orders dated 1st of December, 1983 are read in the light. of the practice of tick marked adopted by Shri Umed Singh Rao, these convey to mean that the name which was tick marked was found, but serial number of the vote of the proposer did not tally with the voters list. The statement conveys the meaning that the serial number of the vote of the proposer mentioned in the nomination paper, his name could not be found in
