Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Jagat Narayan,P.N.Shinghal
SUNDER LAL CHECHANI - Appellant
Versus
SAMPAT LAL - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 109 Of 1962
Decided On : 05/10/1963
ELECTION LAW - NOMINATION PAPER - REJECTION - DEFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER - OMISSION OF NAME OF CONSTITUENCY IN WHICH CANDIDATE ENROLLED AS ELECTOR - WHETHER DEFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 (43 OF 1951), SECS. 33(4), 36(2)(B), 36(4).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on the ground that the nomination paper of one Kesar Singh, who was not dismissed from service but only removed, was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that the defect in the nomination paper was of a substantial character.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the omission of the name of the constituency in which the candidate was enrolled as an elector was a defect of a substantial character and that the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination paper.
Issues: Whether the omission of the name of the constituency in which the candidate was enrolled as an elector was a defect of a substantial character.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the omission of the name of the constituency in which the candidate was enrolled as an elector was a defect of a substantial character because it prevented the Returning Officer from satisfying himself that the candidate was enrolled as an elector in some Assembly constituency in the State and also prevented the other candidates from identifying the candidate and making enquiries as to whether he possessed the required qualifications or suffered from any disqualification.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Tribunal.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by one Sunder Lal Chechani whose petition challenging the validity of the election of Sampat Lal respondent to the mavli constituency of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly at the general election of 1962 was dismissed by the election Tribunal, Udaipur, on August 7, 1962.
( 2 ) THE petition, as originally filed on April 11, 1962, was based, on two grounds contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition which run as follows,--
"4. That the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of Shri Kesar Singh is illegal on the ground that the said Kesar singh was never dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State and that no disqualification under Section 7 (f) of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 could be attached to him; that the said Shri Kesar singh was qualified to stand as a candidate in the election and his nomination had been improperly and illegally rejected. 5. That the second ground of rejection of nomination paper of Shri Kesar singh as given by the Returning Officer was that his number of the electoral roll was not correctly given in the nomination paper. This is illegal and improper as the identity of the candidate was never in doubt and that in the nomination paper his name was shown at No. 11 part 108 of the electoral roll of the Constituency which is correct. The name of Shri Kesar Singh does occur at No. 11 of Part 108 of the electoral roll of the Mavli Assembly constituency. "
The respondent filed his written statement on July, 2, 1962, in which, in reply to paragraph 4, it was inter alia, pleaded that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the dismissal of Kesar Singh was or was not ordered on the ground of corruption, or disloyalty to the State, in view of the provisions of Section 33 (3 ). In reply to paragraph 5, it was stated that it was wrong to say that nomination paper of Kesar Singb was rejected by the Returning officer because his electoral roll number was not correctly given in it but that the nomination paper was rejected because the name of the constituency in which he was enrolled as an elector was not mentioned in the "form". The following issues were framed by the Tribunal on the date on which the written statement was filed, namely, on July 2, 1962, and July 17, 1962 was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner,--"1. Whether Shri Keshar Singh was not dismissed on account of corruption or disloyalty? 2. Whether it was not necessary to mention in the nomination paper the name of the Constituency to which the candidate belonged? 3. (a) Even if Shri Kesar Singh was not dismissed on account of corruption or disloyalty, still was it necessary for Keshar Singh to have filed along with nomination paper a certificate to the effect that he had not been dismissed for corruption of disloyalty to the State? (b) If it was so necessary, what is the effect? 4. Whether it was necessary for the proposer to have mentioned in the nomination paper the name of the Constituency to which he belonged? 5. Whether the defect mentioned in issue No. 4 can be ultilised to uphold the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper, although the Returning Officer has not based his order on the said defect? 6. What is the relief?. " on July 17, the petitioner moved an application for the amendment of the petition. The application was based on two grounds, firstly, that the amendments sought were only amplifications of the grounds already taken and, secondly, that they were by way of a correction of techincal mistakes which has crept in the petition on account of a wrong reading of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of Kesar Singh. The following amendments were sought,--
"1. In Para 4 of the election petition after is illegal on the ground that the said Kesar Singh and before was n
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
