Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Ranawat,Sharma
BRIJ SUNDER SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
ELECTION TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR - Respondent
Writ Pet. 92 Of 1956
Decided On : 08/27/1956
The court held that the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The court also held that the respondent had no locus standi to file an election petition and raise questions of major and minor corrupt practices alleged by him in his petition. The court further held that the judgment of the majority on Issue No. 7 (a) regarding the obtaining of assistance by the petitioner from Shri Bakshi, Executive Engineer Irrigation, Bundi was erroneous on its face. The court also held that the minority and majority judgments were erroneous on their face so far as Issues Nos. 15 (a) and 16 (a) were concerned. The court further held that the majority judgment was erroneous on its face so far as Issue No. 16 (b) relating to the payment of travelling allowances and not entering them in the return of election expenses was concerned. The court also held that the order of the tribunal so far as disqualification of the petitioner was concerned was illegal and ultra vires. Finally, the court held that the order of the tribunal dated the 30th April, 1956, was liable to be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Brij Sunder Sharma, filed a nomination paper for the by-election to fill in a seat of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Sironj constituency. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper on the ground that the serial number of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll was not given in column No. 8 of the nomination paper. The petitioner challenged the Returning Officer's order by filing an election petition. The Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition and declared the election of the petitioner to be void. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Election Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The court also held that the respondent had no locus standi to file an election petition and raise questions of major and minor corrupt practices alleged by him in his petition. The court further held that the judgment of the majority on Issue No. 7 (a) regarding the obtaining of assistance by the petitioner from Shri Bakshi, Executive Engineer Irrigation, Bundi was erroneous on its face. The court also held that the minority and majority judgments were erroneous on their face so far as Issues Nos. 15 (a) and 16 (a) were concerned. The court further held that the majority judgment was erroneous on its face so far as Issue No. 16 (b) relating to the payment of travelling allowances and not entering them in the return of election expenses was concerned. The court also held that the order of the tribunal so far as disqualification of the petitioner was concerned was illegal and ultra vires. Finally, the court held that the order of the tribunal dated the 30th April, 1956, was liable to be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer? 2. Whether the respondent had locus standi to file an election petition and raise questions of major and minor corrupt practices alleged by him in his petition? 3. Whether the judgment of the majority on Issue No. 7 (a) regarding the obtaining of assistance by the petitioner from Shri Bakshi, Executive Engineer Irrigation, Bundi was erroneous on its face? 4. Whether the minority and majority judgments were erroneous on their face so far as Issues Nos. 15 (a) and 16 (a) were concerned? 5. Whether the majority judgment was erroneous on its face so far as Issue No. 16 (b) relating to the payment of travelling allowances and not entering them in the return of election expenses was concerned? 6. Whether the order of the tribunal so far as disqualification of the petitioner was concerned was illegal and ultra vires? 7. Whether the order of the tribunal dated the 30th April, 1956, was liable to be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer because the defect in the nomination paper was only a technical defect of unsubstantial character. The court also held that the respondent had no locus standi to file an election petition and raise questions of major and minor corrupt practices alleged by him in his petition because he was not an elector in the Sironj constituency. The court further held that the judgment of the majority on Issue No. 7 (a) regarding the obtaining of assistance by the petitioner from Shri Bakshi, Executive Engineer Irrigation, Bundi was erroneous on its face because it was based on inadmissible evidence. The court also held that the minority and majority judgments were erroneous on their face so far as Issues Nos. 15 (a) and 16 (a) were concerned because they were based on insufficient evidence. The court further held that the majority judgment was erroneous on its face so far as Issue No. 16 (b) relating to the payment of travelling allowances and not entering them in the return of election expenses was concerned because it was based on inadmissible evidence. The court also held that the order of the tribunal so far as disqualification of the petitioner was concerned was illegal and ultra vires because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such an order. Finally, the court held that the order of the tribunal dated the 30th April, 1956, was liable to be quashed because it was erroneous on its face.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Election Tribunal dated the 30th April, 1956.
( 1 ) THIS is an application by Shri Brij Sunder Sharma under Article 226 of the constitution of India for a writ of certiorari, against the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, and 8 others, for. setting aside its order dated 30th April, 1956, and also for prohibition against the said Tribunal directing it not to forward its order dated the 30th April, 1956, to the Election Commission. In the alternative, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the constitution against the said Tribunal for setting aside the said order has been prayed for. It has further been prayed in the alternative that under Article 227 of the Constitution the said order be quashed.
( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to this petition are as noted below: (2a) In November, 1953, a bye-election was held to fill in a seat of the rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Sironj constituency in district kotah, Shri Abhinna Hari, respondent No. 2, Shri Madan Lal Agarwal, respondent no. 3, Shri Kesri Mal Jain, respondent No. 4 and Shri Brij sunder Sharma, the petitioner before us, filled in their, nomination papers and at the time of scrutiny of the said papers the nomination paper of Shri Abhinna Hari was rejected and the election was consequently contested by the three remaining candidates. Shri Brij sunder Sharma was declared successful at the election, by means of a gazette notification or the 23rd November, 1954. Shri Abhinna Hari (hereinafter to be referred as respondent No. 2) then filed an election petition on the 5th of February, 1954, before the Election Commission, delhi, which was forwarded to the Election Tribunal Jaipur for disposal. The Tribunal framed a number of issues out of which the following issues are relevant for the purposes of this petition: issue No. (2)--Whether the petitioners nomination was improperly injected and the rejection has materially affected the result of the election. Issue No. 7 (a)--Whether Shri Bakshi, Executive Engineer. Irrigation at bundi, toured the constituency at the instance of respondent No. 1 towards the end of September and beginning of October, 1953. in order to further the prospects of respondent No. 1 in the bye-election issue No. 15 (a)--Whether respondent No. 1 fed about 400 workers during the election and the expenses of their feeding have not been shown in the return of election expanses filed by him. Issue No. 15 (b)--If so, what is the effect on the result of the election. Issue No. 16 (a)--Whether 4 community kitchens at Sironj and one each at Despua-Kharg, Anantpura, Ghatal, Lateri and Unarsi-tal, were started by respondent No. 1 to feed his workers numbering in all about 400 and these expenses should have been included in the return of election expenses filed by the respondent. Issue No. 16 (b)--Whether travelling allowances were paid by the respondent to his workers of which the list has been filed by the petitioner and these expenses should have been shown in the return of election expenses.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 was not an elector in Sironj constituency but he was an elector in Ladpura constituency in the district of Kotah. He presented 4 nomination papers to the Returning Officer on or before the 5th October, 1953, the date for the filing of the nomination papers In column No, 8 of the three nomination papers the Serial No. of respondent No. 2 of 1951 Electoral Roll of Ladpura constituency was mentioned and in the 4th nomination paper the same Serial No. was repeated but the description of the electoral roll was not given. The Electrol Roll of Kotah district was first prepared in the year 1951 which remained in force till the 17th of September, 1953, when a new electoral roll of 1952 was prepared and published and which was the electoral roll in force at the time of the filing of the nomination papers during this election. The contest between the parties relating to Issue No. 2 centred round the entry in Col. 8 of the 4th nomination paper which is Ex.
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
