Mahesh Prasad Singh vs Satrughan Sinha

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Pat) 1164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
V.N. SINHA, J.
Mahesh Prasad Singh, son of late Chandrika Singh, resident of village Nuruddinpur, P.O.-P.S. Khusrupur, district Patna - Petitioner
Versus
Satrughan Sinha, son of Late Bhuvneshwari Prasad Sinha, resident of house No.102 D. Block Kadamkuan, P.O. Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-800003-Respondent
Election Petition No.6 of 2009
Decided on: 5-9-2012

Advocates Appeared
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/s. S.N.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv., Manik Vedsen, Amarendra Kr. Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates.

Headnote:Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 81-Election of returned candidate of 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency of 2009 General Election challenged on the allegation that the election petitioner was totally prevented from contesting the election by virtue of the ruling party getting assistance from the Returning Officer for furtherance of election process of the sole respondent by dint of latent administrative pressure at one end or the other-No assertion made in the election petition in support of such allegation nor any evidence led to establish that on account of latent administrative pressure exercised by the ruling party Returning Officer with the consent of respondent acted for furtherance of his election prospect-For the falure of the election petitioner to comply Sub-Clause-(1) (b) of Section 83 read with Sub-Section (7) of Section 123 of the Act, such averments cannot be relied upon. (Para 37)
       Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 30, 33 & 36-Scrutiny of nomination papers-On presentation of the nomination paper completed in the prescribed form the Returning Officer or the Authorized Officer is to satisfy himself about the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposers, as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral roll-Proviso to this sub-section requires the Returning Officer to permit any clerical or technical error in the nomination paper in regard to the said names or numbers to be corrected and where necessary it authorizes Returning Officer to direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entry shall be overlooked-During scrutiny of the nomination paper the Returning Officer is to examine the nomination paper and to decide all objections which may be made to any nomination or on his own motion after summary enquiry as he thinks necessary regarding the following grounds (a) that the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified (b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 33 or 34 or (c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine-In the instant case, petitioner having not furnished his correct age in part III of the nomination form which was the appropriate form for indicating the age of the candidate, petitioner submitted incomplete nomination form and thereby failed to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, which require the candidate to deliver the nomination paper completed in the prescribed form to the Returning Officer before the appointed date-None of the provisions of Section 33 or 36 authorize the Returning Officer to ignore the incorrect age mentioned in the appropriate column of the nomination form i.e. part III-Returning Officer had no option but to reject the nomination paper for failure of the petitioner to deliver his nomination paper completed in the prescribed form to the Returning Officer before the appointed date. (Para 38)
       AIR 1954 SC 510; AIR 1961 SC 1527; AIR 1964 SC 358; 2012 (1) PLJR 313; AIR 1984 SC 921; (2003) 8 SCC 498; (2009)8 SCC 736; (1977)4 SCC 16; (2002)5 SCC 294; (2003)4 SCC 399; AIR 1956 SC 140; 2004(1) PLJR 261; (2009) 13 SCC 131; 2007 (1) PLJR 329 para-13; (1978)1 SCC 405 para-8; 2005 (5) SCC 793; AIR 1984 SC 856 para 2, 5, & 6,; AIR 1960 SC 1049, para 9, 17; (2004)2 SCC 759 para 7, 13, 2012 (1) PLJR SC 313 para-35, 45; (2009)8 SCC 736 para-3, 4, (2009)10 SCC 541 para-8, (2011)7 SCC 721 para-7, 8 and 37; AIR 1969 SC 1204; AIR 1986 SC 1253; AIR 1960 SC 1049-Referred to.

JUDGMENT

V.N. Sinha, J.

1. By filing this election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the Act) petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the election of sole respondent from 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency held during General Election 2009 vide declaration dated 30.6.2009 on the ground that nomination paper of the election petitioner for the said election was erroneously rejected and thereby election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared as void under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 100 of the Act.

2. Election petitioner filed his nomination paper on 18.4.2009 for contesting election from 30-Patna Sahib Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate of Lok Dal party. Having filed the nomination paper petitioner was granted receipt, Annexure-2 asking him to appear for scrutiny of nomination paper on 20.4.2009 at 11 A.M., check list of documents, Annexure-1 indicated that required documents have been filed by the petitioner along with nomination paper. Having filed the nomination paper petitioner was telephonically informed to come to the confidential section of the office of the Returning Officer on 19.4.2009 at 1.40 P.M. to receive an urgent letter. In the light of the instruction petitioner came to the confidential section at 2 P.M. but was kept waiting for an hour and thereafter told that his presence is no more required, whereafter petitioner returned back. In compliance of the instruction given in the receipt to appear for scrutiny of his nomination paper on 20.4.2009 at 11 A.M. petitioner appeared for scrutiny of his nomination paper, he was called in the chamber of the Returning Officer and after scrutiny of his nomination paper no objection was raised by the Returning Officer as he was satisfied with the contents of the nomination paper and asked the petitioner to leave. The list of validly nominated candidate was published on the notice board on 21.4.2009 at 4.30 P.M. whereafter petitioner came to know that his name is not included in the list of the validly nominated candidate, petitioner submitted application before the Magistrate on duty, who neither received application nor allowed the petitioner to appear before the Returning Officer and thus petitioner was deprived of the reason which persuaded the Returning Officer to reject his nomination paper. On 22.4.2009 petitioner again visited the office of the Returning Officer but there was none to receive his application with requisition for grant of certified copy of the order by which his nomination paper was rejected. The petitioner thereafter communicated the illegal rejection of his nomination paper to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi under fax message dated 22.4.2009 which was transmitted at 14.18 hours annexing the copy of representation dated 21.4.2009. Both the applications are contained in Annexures-3, 3/1 to the election petition. In paragraph-13 of the election petition petitioner has stated that when the free copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper was not given to the petitioner he was compelled to file requisition no.429 dated 25.4.2009, Annexure-4 for obtaining certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper. In paragraph-14 of the election petition petitioner has submitted that he was never furnished the certified copy pursuant to requisition dated 25.4.2009. In paragraph-15 of the election petition petitioner has stated that on 25.6.2009 he came to the office of the Returning Officer/ election office and was informed that he is required to deposit Rs.800/- for the non-judicial stamp excluding 170 folios for obtaining certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination which could not be deposited/submitted for want of availability of personnel in the election office. In paragraph-16 of the election petition petitioner has asserted that as neither the free copy nor certified copy of the order rejecting his nomination paper was given, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document