The provisions of Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which prohibit a person from being registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once, are directory and not mandatory.

Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 100 - Election petition - Grounds for declaring election void - Disqualification for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly - Holding an office of profit under the Government - Interpretation of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution - Compliance with Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Mandatory or directory provision - Resignation from membership of the Legislative Council within 14 days of election - Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Relevance to the appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Ramnarain, challenged the election of the respondent, Ramchandra, to the Bombay Legislative Assembly on three grounds: (1) that the respondent was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly because he was holding an office of profit under the Government, (2) that the respondent was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly because his name appeared twice in the electoral roll, and (3) that the respondent's seat had fallen vacant because he had not resigned from his membership of the Legislative Council within 14 days of his election to the Legislative Assembly.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that: (1) the respondent was not holding an office of profit under the Government because his appointment to the Legislative Council was not under the control of the State Government and there was no provision for the State Government to remove him from office; (2) the provisions of Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which prohibit a person from being registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once, are directory and not mandatory, and therefore the respondent's name appearing twice in the electoral roll did not disqualify him from being elected; and (3) the issue of whether the respondent had resigned from his membership of the Legislative Council within 14 days of his election to the Legislative Assembly was not relevant to the appeal because it was not a ground for declaring an election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly because he was holding an office of profit under the Government? 2. Whether the respondent was qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly because his name appeared twice in the electoral roll? 3. Whether the respondent's seat had fallen vacant because he had not resigned from his membership of the Legislative Council within 14 days of his election to the Legislative Assembly?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution to mean that a person is disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly only if he holds an office of profit under the Government and that the appointment to and removal from that office are under the control of the State Government. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, are directory and not mandatory, and therefore the respondent's name appearing twice in the electoral roll did not disqualify him from being elected. 3. The court held that the issue of whether the respondent had resigned from his membership of the Legislative Council within 14 days of his election to the Legislative Assembly was not relevant to the appeal because it was not a ground for declaring an election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.

Judgment

1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. XLIII of 1951), hereinafter called the Act of 1951.

2. The appellant Ramnarain is the defeated candidate. Ramnarain and respondent Ramchandra were two rival candidates for election to the Bombay Legislative Assembly from the Yeotmal Assembly constituency.

3. Facts material for the purposes of this appeal, which are not in dispute, in brief are: Respondents name appeared at two places in the electoral roll of the Yeotmal Assembly constituency. It appeared once at No. 572 in village Gharfal and second time at No. 816 in Yeotmal town. Both Gharfal and Yeotmal fall within the area comprising Yeotmal Assembly constituency. In the nomination paper submitted by the respondent, he had mentioned his electoral roll No. as 572 of Gharfal. No objection was taken to his nomination paper. Elections were held on 6-3-1957. Respondent cast his vote at Yeotmal and obtained the ballot paper on the electoral roll No. 816 of Yeotmal town. It is to be noted that he had not voted twice, i. e. once on roll No. 816 of Yeotmal and second time on roll 110. 572 of Gharfal. The counting of votes was completed by 8-3-57 and on that day the result was declared. The respondent obtained highest number of votes and he was declared duly elected. The result of the elections was duly published in the official gazette on 4-4-1957. It is to be noted that prior to the date of election the respondent wag a sitting member of the Bombay Legislative Council and was also receiving pay in that capacity. He tendered resignation of his seat in the Bombay Legislative Council on 24-3-1957. On 21-4-1957 the appellant made an election petition before the Election Commission of India. This election petition was then referred for trial to the Election Tribunal Wardha.

4. The material contentions raised by the appellant in the petition were two-fold; firstly, it was contended that as the respondent No. 1 since some time prior to the date of election was a sitting member of the Bombay Legislative Council and was receiving salary of that office, he was a person disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly within the meaning of Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 191 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, his election was liable to be set aside under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Act of 1951. The second contention was that as the respondents name appeared twice in the electoral roll, once at roll No. 572 of village Gharfal and for the second time at roll No. 816 of town Yeotmal, the provisions of Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (No. XLIII of 1950), hereinafter called the Act of 1950, were not complied with, and, therefore, he was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Bombay Legislative Assembly within the meaning of Section 5 (c) of the Act of 1951. It was, therefore, contended that the election of the respondent was liable to be declared void under Clause (d)(iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Act of 1951.

5. In addition to these two contentions, at the stage of arguments before the Election Tribunal the election of the respondent was challenged on the ground that he having not resigned his membership of the Bombay Legislative Council within 14 days of the date of election, that is within 14 days from 8th March 1957, his scat has fallen vacant under Section 70 of the Act of 1951. None of these contentions prevailed before the Election Tribunal. It, therefore, dismissed the petition. The appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal.

6. Shri B. R. Mandlekar, who appears for the appellant, has pressed these three contentions before us. As regards the first contention, he contends that the Election Tribunal was in error in holding that the respondent was not , holding an office of profit under the Government. He has placed reliance on Articles 168, 174 and 192 of the Constitution.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document