SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar, Appellant
Versus
Genu Govind Kadam and others, Respondents.
Election Appeal No. 232 (NCE) of 1987
Decided on 14-9-1988
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 33(5),36(7),36 and 116A Nomination for election - Election petition - Appellant is a person residing at Pune in the State of Maharashtra - A bye-election was proposed to be held on to fill a seat in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which had become vacant on account of death of the sitting member who was representing 263 Jaoli Legislative Assmebly constituency - Scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed - Appellant filed his nomination paper - Since he was not registered as an elector in the Jaoli constituency but was an elector of Assembly constituency, a certified copy of relevant entry in electoral roll of Shivaji Nagar constituency in which his name appeared had to be filed along with his nomination paper or had to be produced before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny as provided in sub-sec. (5) of S. 33 of Representation of the People Act, 1951- Accordingly the appellant applied to the Tahsildar, who was the custodian of the electoral roll in force of that constituency to furnish him with a certified copy of entry pertaining to him in the electoral roll - In that application he specifically mentioned that he required the certified copy for purpose of producing it before the Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency for enabling him to file his nomination paper – Held, even the second copy supplied had been prepared from same supplement - Both the first certified copy and the second certified copy were copies of the same original Subsection (7) of S. 36 of the 1951 Act lays down a rule of evidence - It says that a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in S. 16 of the 1950 Act - In the absence of any such objection on the part of any other candidate or any information which the Returning Officer may have had with regard to disqualification of appellant, Returning Officer should have in circumstances of this. case proceeded to accept the certified copy produced along with nomination paper and acted upon it - Court hold that the certified copy produced along with the nomination paper satisfied the requirement of S. 33(5) of 1951 Act - Court are of the view that in circumstances the appellant who was an innocent person has been denied the right to contest the election unreasonably - Court hold that the rejection of nomination paper of appellant was improper - It follows that election of the 1st respondent should be declared void in view of the provisions contained in S. 100(l)(c) of the 1951 Act - Court allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of High Court and declare election of the 1st respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Jaoli Constituency void - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
VENKATARAMIAH J.:— The appellant is a person residing at Pune in the State of Maharashtra. A bye-election was proposed to be held on the 2nd February, 1986 to fill a seat in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which had become vacant on account of the death of the sitting member who was representing 263 Jaoli Legislative Assmebly constituency in Satara district in the State of Maharashtra. The last date for making nominations at the said election was the 10th January, 1986 and the scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed to take place on January 11, 1986. The appellant filed his nomination paper on January 9,1986. Since he was not registered as an elector in the Jaoli constituency but was an elector of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency in Pune, a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll of the Shivaji Nagar constituency in which his name appeared had to be filed along with his nomination paper or had to be produced -before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny as provided in sub-sec. (5) of S. 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act). Accordingly the appellant applied to the Tahsildar, Pune city (who was also the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency) who was the custodian of the electoral roll in force of that constituency to furnish him with a certified copy of the entry pertaining to him in the electoral roll on 6th Jan. 1986. In that application he specifically mentioned that he required the certified copy for the purpose of producing it before the Returning Officer of the Jaoli constituency for enabling him to file his nomination paper. The certified copy was made ready on 8th January, 1986 and delivered to the appellant on the same day by the Tahsildar, Pune city (Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Shivajinagar Assembly constituency). The certified copy was in Marathi language. The material part of the English translation of the said certified copy reads thus :
"247. Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency List of Voters - 1984
Name of village: Hutatma Rajguru Health Camp.
Taluka - Pune City Distt. Pune
Mahanagar Palika Part No./Polling Centre
Ward No. 9 No. 47
Sl. No. House No. Name of the voter with the name of father, mother or husband. M/F Approximate Age on 1-1-84
16. Wadar Housing Society Block No. 1 Nunekar Jagannath Ramchandra M 35
Latest date of publication
31-1-1984
Sd/-
Electoral Registration
Officer 247, Shivajinagar,
Assembly Constituency,
Pune.
Copying Fee Applied on 6-1-1986 Ready on 8-1-1986
delivered on 8-1-1986
Copied by Kale."
2. After obtaining the above-said copy on January 8, 1986 the appellant filed his nomination paper as stated above on the next day, i e., on 9th Jan. 1986 and along with his nomination paper he produced the certified copy obtained by him as required by sub-sec. (5) of S. 33 of the 1951 Act. On seeing the said certified copy the Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency told the appellant that since it had been noted in the certified copy that the latest day of publication of the electoral roll in which the name of the appellant was appearing was 31st Jan. 1984 he had to bring another certified copy as there were revisions subsequent to Jan. 31, 1984. Acting on the suggestion made by the Returning Officer the appellant returned to Pune again and applied for another certified copy on the 10th Jan. 1986 after the office of the Tahsi1dar was opened in the forenoon. The Tahsildar told him that the certified copy would be ready by 4.30 in the afternoon. Ultimately the appellant was able to get that copy at 5 P.M. on 10th Jan. 1986. The earliest bus available to the appellant to leave Pune for going to the place where the Returning Officer was taking up the work of scrutiny of nomination papers was to start at 9 A.M. on 11th Jan. 1986. The appellant reached the office of the Returning Officer at about I p. m. in the afternoon on 11th January, 1986, i.e., the date fixed f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.