SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 640

2011 (6) Supreme 537
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli kr. Prasad, JJ.
Nandiesha Reddy — Appellant
versus
Mrs.Kavitha Mahesh — Respondent
Civil Appeal No......5142............of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.14286 of 2010)
with
N.S. Nandish Reddy — Appellant
versus
Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh — Respondent
Civil Appeal No......5143............of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16337 of 2010)
Decided on : 8-7-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal of nomination papers – requirements in law.

Headnote:(a) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 33 – Having complied with the requirements of the provision, the election petitioner was held to be a candidate. (Paras 13 and 14)

        1993 Supp. (4) SCC 386; (2007) 11 SCC 1 (2007) 11 SCC 1

        (b) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 81 – When a nomination paper is presented it is the bounden duty of the Returning Officer to receive the nomination, peruse it, point out the defects, if any, and allow the candidate to rectify the defects – When the defects are not removed then alone the question of rejection of nomination would arise. (Para 13)

        (c) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 83(1)(a) – The election petition, disclosing material facts could not be dismissed at then threshold. (Para 22)

       

JUDGMENT

Chandrmauli Kr.Prasad, J. —

1. Nandiesha Reddy got elected to the Karnataka Assembly in the general election from K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency held on 10th of May, 2008. His election was challenged by Kavitha Mahesh, inter alia, on the ground that her nomination was illegally not accepted by the Returning Officer which rendered Nandiesha Reddy’s election void. Nandiesha Reddy (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Returned Candidate’) filed two applications; one under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out pleading from the election petition and another under Sections 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the election petition. The Karnataka High Court by the impugned orders dated 8th October, 2009 and 12th November, 2009 dismissed the aforesaid applications.

2. The Returned Candidate assails aforesaid orders in the present Special Leave Petitions.

3. Leave granted.

4. Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the Election Commission of India on 16th of April, 2008 notified its intention to hold General election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly and announced the election schedule. According to the schedule, the last date for submission of the nomination was 23rd of April, 2008 whereas the scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be undertaken on 24th of April, 2008. The date of election fixed was 10th of May, 2008. Kavitha Mahesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Election Petitioner’) was an electorate in the combined Varthur Assembly Constituency prior to de-limitation. After de-limitation the said constituency has been split into three constituencies, namely (i) Mahadevapura (ii) C.V.Raman Nagar and (iii) K.R.Pura. After the de-limitation, the Election Petitioner’s name appeared in the electoral roll of C.V.Ramana Nagar Constituency. In order to contest the election from K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency, according to the Election Petitioner, on 19th of April, 2008 she obtained a set of nomination forms from the Returning Officer. It is her case that on 23rd of April, 2008 at about 2.00 P.M. she delivered the nomination papers together with all annexures to the Returning Officer and requested him to furnish the latest electoral roll of K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency in order to extract the new part number and serial number of the proposers who had signed on the nomination papers for incorporating the same in the appropriate column against their respective names. It is alleged that the Returning Officer instead of furnishing the latest electoral roll of K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency, asked the Election Petitioner to approach the Revenue Office to obtain those details. It has specifically been averred by the Election Petitioner that she went to the Revenue Office but could not get those details from the Revenue Officer and therefore, she went to file the nomination papers, presented the same before the Returning Officer but it was not received. It is her allegation that, thereafter, she attempted to give a handwritten representation to the Returning Officer but the same was also not accepted. Hence she left the place without filing the nomination. It is also her allegation that on 28th of April, 2008, she filed a complaint in this regard before the Chief Election Commissioner.

5. The election was held on 10th of May, 2008 and its result was published on 27th of May, 2008 in which the Returned Candidate was declared elected from K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency. This was challenged by the Election Petitioner in an election petition before the Karnataka High Court. The Election of the Returned Candidate was sought to be declared null and void on the ground of illegal rejection of nomination paper at threshold by the Returning Officer.

6. As usual, the Returned Candidate filed applications for striking out various paragraphs from












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top