Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.C.Misra and U.N.Sinha JJ.
Chandra Shekar Prasad Singh
Versus
Jai Prakash Singh
Election Appeal No. 6 of 1958 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 15, 1958
ELECTION LAW - Improper acceptance of nomination paper - Effect on election of other candidates - Double-member constituency - Whether election of both candidates to be declared void - Representation of the People Act, 1951 (XLIII of 1951), Secs. 23, 24, 30, 98, 100.
Fact of the Case:
In a double-member constituency, one of the candidates, Bhagwat Murmu, was declared elected along with another candidate, Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh. An election petition was filed challenging the election of Bhagwat Murmu on the ground that his nomination paper was improperly accepted. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election of both Bhagwat Murmu and Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh to be void.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the improper acceptance of Bhagwat Murmu's nomination paper did not affect the election of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh. The court found that the election of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh was wrongly declared to be void by the Election Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the improper acceptance of Bhagwat Murmu's nomination paper affected the election of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh? 2. Whether the election of both candidates in a double-member constituency is indivisible and, therefore, the election of both candidates must be declared void if the election of one candidate is held to be void?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh was not affected by the improper acceptance of Bhagwat Murmu's nomination paper. The court found that the election of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh was wrongly declared to be void by the Election Tribunal. The court held that the election of both candidates in a double-member constituency is not indivisible and, therefore, the election of both candidates does not have to be declared void if the election of one candidate is held to be void.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the elections of the appellants to be void. The court also set aside the order of the Election Tribunal allowing the election petition.
U.N.Sinha, J.
1. This is an appeal under Sec.116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. XLIII of 1951). The appeal is directed against the order dated the 20th March, 1958, passed by the Election Tribunal, Monghyr, by which the Tribunal set aside the election of the two appellants in this Court, who were respondents before the Tribunal. Jai Prakash Singh, the respondent in this Court, had filed the election petition praying that the election of the two candidates who had been declared elected on the 13th March, 1957, from Jhajha Assembly Double Member Constituency in the last General Election, be declared void.
As stated above, for reasons given by the Tribunal, the petition was allowed and the election of the two returned candidates was declared void.
2. A number of points had been agitated before the Tribunal but the questions have been confined in this Court, first, to whether appellant Bhagwat Murrau was qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislative Assembly of this State and secondly, to, the effect of setting aside the election of one of the elected candidates in a double-member constituency. I will, therefore, mention only those facts and circumstances which are relevant for the determination of the questions raised in this court.
3. In the last general election to the Bihar State Assembly held in the year 1957 six persons including the appellants had contested from the Jhajha Constituency. It was double-member constituency with one seat reserved for the Scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes. Bhagwat Murmu had fulfilled this condition for the reserved seat.
4. After the issue of a notification calling upon this constituency to elect its members for the Bihar State Assembly Bhagwat Murmu applied to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, on the 22nd January, 1957, for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of the constituency. The provisions governing such an application are Sec.23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act XLIII of 1950) and Rule 26 of the Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1956. The relevant portion of Sec.23 of Act XLIII of 1950 runs as follows : --
"23 (1). Any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply in the manner hereinafter provided for the inclusion of his name in that roll.
(2) Where an application under Sub-section (1) is made at any time after the issue of a notification calling upon that constituency or the Parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised, to elect a member or members and before the completion of that election, it shall be made to the chief electoral officer; and in any other case, it shall be made to the electoral registration officer of that constituency.
(3) The chief electoral officer or, as the case may be, the electoral registration officer shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein : Provided that if the applicant is registered in the electoral roll of any other constituency in the same State, the chief electoral officer, or as the case may be, the electoral registration officer of that constituency and that officer shall, on receipt of the information, strike off the applicants name from that electoral roll."
5. Rule 26 of the Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1956, provides for the procedure to be followed when an application is made under Sec.23 of Act XLIII of 1950. Rule 26 runs as follows:-
-
"26(1) Every application under Sub-section (1) of Sec.23 shall be made in duplicate in Form 4 (Part I) and shall be accompanied - (a) where it is the chief electoral officer, by a fee of five rupees, and
(b) where it is to the electoral registration officer, by a fee of one rupee.
(2) The fee specified in Sub-rule (1) shall be paid by means of non-judicial stamps.
(3) The chief electoral officer, or, as the case
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
