Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MANOHAR PERSHAD,MOHD.AHMED ANSARI, JJ.
Dippala Suri Dora
Versus
V. V. Giri
Special Appeal No. 4 of 1957 against the order of Election Tribunal, Hyderabad
Decided On : 13-03-1958
The appellant, a member of the scheduled tribe, contested the election for the Parliamentary Constituency of Parvatipur in the State of Andhra, a double-member constituency, one seat of which was reserved for the scheduled tribes, the other seat being general. The appellant filed a single nomination paper for both the seats. The Returning Officer declared the appellant elected for the general seat. The respondent, who was a candidate for the general seat, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the election of the appellant was materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election of the appellant void and held the respondent as duly elected. On appeal, the High Court held that a separate nomination paper was not necessary for each seat and that the declaration by the Returning Officer that the appellant was elected should stand.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a member of the scheduled tribe, contested the election for the Parliamentary Constituency of Parvatipur in the State of Andhra, a double-member constituency, one seat of which was reserved for the scheduled tribes, the other seat being general. The appellant filed a single nomination paper for both the seats. The Returning Officer declared the appellant elected for the general seat. The respondent, who was a candidate for the general seat, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the election of the appellant was materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election of the appellant void and held the respondent as duly elected.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that a separate nomination paper was not necessary for each seat and that the declaration by the Returning Officer that the appellant was elected should stand.
Issues: Whether a separate nomination paper was necessary for each seat.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that a separate nomination paper was not necessary for each seat, relying on the following reasoning: * The Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not require separate nomination papers for each seat in a double-member constituency. * The form prescribed for nomination papers does not provide for separate nomination papers for each seat. * The Returning Officer has followed the procedure laid down in Section 54(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which does not require separate nomination papers for each seat.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and restored the order of the Returning Officer declaring the appellant elected.
MANOHAR PERSHAD, J. : -
In the 1957 General Elections, the following persons, (1) Shri R. Satyanarayana Dora, (2) Shri D. Suri Dora, (3) Shri V. V. Giri and (4) Shri V. Krishnamoorthy Naidu, contested the elections for the Parliamentary Constituency of Parvatipur in the State of Andhra, a double-member constituency, one seat of which was reserved for the scheduled tribes, the other seat being general. Of the four, numbers 1 and 3 were the candidates of the Congress Party and numbers 2 and 4 were of the Socialist Party.
Their nominations were filed on 28-1-1957 and after scrutiny of the nominations, polling in the aforesaid constituency took place between 25-2-1957 and 19-3-1957. The votes polled were as follows :
1. Shri B. Satyanarayana Dora ...... 1,26,792
2. Shri D. Suri Dora .... 1,24,604
3. Shri V. V. Giri .... 1,24,039
4. Shri V. Krishnamoorthy Naidu .... 1,18,968
The result of the elections was declared on 19-3-1957, whereby Shri B. Satyanarayana Dora was declared elected for the reserved seat and Shri D. Suri Dora for the general seat. Shri V. V. Giri respondent 1 herein, filed an election petition before the Election Commission, New Delhi on 16-4-1957, challenging the election of Shri D. Suri Dora on the ground that the election of the aforesaid candidate was materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder, in that :
(1) The returned candidate has been declared elected for the general seat without his filing nomination for the general seat, as required by S. 32 of the Act;
(2) Section 54 of the Act does not authorise grouping of the contestants for the General Seat with Scheduled Tribes candidates, who never filed nomination, nor contested for the general seat, for the purpose of determining who has secured the largest number" of votes for the General Seat, and that if that section be construed to authorise such grouping, it is ultra vires, void and illegal;
(3) The result of the election of Shri D. Suri Dora was materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of India, Part III of the Constitution, and in particular, Arts. 14 and 15 thereof;
(4) The result of the election of the returned candidate has been further materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination in that-
(i) He falsely declared himself to be a member of the Scheduled tribes of Mukka Doras in his nomination paper, whereas in fact he was and is not a member of any Scheduled Tribe and was a Kshatriya; and
(ii) As Shri D. Suri Dora was not a member of the Scheduled Tribes he could not be deemed to have been duly nominated because his deposit of Rs. 250/- only does not comply with S. 34 of the Act.
Shri V. V. Giri therefore prayed that the election of Shri Suri Dora be declared void and he be declared to have been duly elected for the general, or non-reserved seat, having received the majority of the valid votes. On receipt of this petition, its copy was published in the Official Gazette, as required by sub-s. (1) of S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and notices were issued to the respondents.
2. After the notices were served, an Election Tribunal, constituting of Shri W. S. Krishnaswami Naidu, a retired Judge of the Madras High Court, was appointed for the trial of the petition and Hyderabad was selected as the place of the trial. Parties appeared through their counsel. Sri D. Suri Dora, the first respondent, filed a counter to the petition by Shri V. V. Giri, which counter was also adopted by the third respondent.
He has therein stated that his nomination was not for the reserved seat, but was with respect to the constituency, that the declaration of his having been duly elected for the general seat was legal, valid and was in conformity with S. 54 read with Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act, that the illustration to S. 54 (4) was in conformity with the Section and was neither
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
