Back
1965 Supreme(P&H) 38
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.B.Capoor and I.D.Dua JJ.
Sat Narain Fatech Chand
Versus
Hardayal Singh
Civil Writ No. 1916 of 1963,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 11, 1965
The jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner is strictly confined within the narrow limits prescribed by the relevant statute.
Headnote:
ELECTION - MUNICIPAL - SETTING ASIDE OF ELECTION - MATERIAL IRREGULARITY - MINORITY OF VOTERS - JURISDICTION OF ELECTION COMMISSIONER - PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT, 1911 (PUNJAB ACT III OF 1911), SEC. 225 - PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ELECTION RULES, 1952, R. 51(E), 63(1)(C).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Sat Narain was declared successful in the election to the Municipal Committee Abohar from Ward No. 12 by a majority of five votes. Respondents 5 to 9 filed an election petition alleging material irregularities and corrupt practices. The Election Commissioner set aside the election, holding that 11 voters were either minors or bogus and that substantial number of minor votes had been cast in favor of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Election Commissioner had no jurisdiction to go into the question of minority of voters or to open the envelope of votes to find out that substantial number of minor voters had cast their votes in favor of the petitioner. The court further held that the jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner is strictly confined within the narrow limits prescribed by the relevant statute.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commissioner had jurisdiction to go into the question of minority of voters? 2. Whether the Election Commissioner had jurisdiction to open the envelope of votes to find out that substantial number of minor voters had cast their votes in favor of the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Election Commissioner had no jurisdiction to go into the question of minority of voters because it was not specifically pleaded in the election petition that the 11 voters in question had voted for the petitioner. 2. The court held that the Election Commissioner had no jurisdiction to open the envelope of votes to find out that substantial number of minor voters had cast their votes in favor of the petitioner because there was no allegation in the election petition that the votes in question had been cast by minors.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Election Commissioner setting aside the election and allowed the writ petition with costs.
I.D.Dua, J.
1. This petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the learned Election Commissioner (Ward No. 12 Municipal Committee Abohar Muktsar dated 11-10-1963 by means of which the election as Municipal Commissioner at Sat Narain petitioners was set aside. The only point canvassed in these proceedings relates to issue No. 2 and it has been strongly argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Election Commissioner has transgressed the limits of his jurisdiction by holding that the 11 voters mentioned in the impugned order were either minors or bogus and that substantial number of minor votes had been case in favour of the petitioners and that this constituted material irregularity in the election and by setting aside the election on these grounds. Stress has been laid on the fact the no re-count having been claimed it was not open to the Election Commissioner to open the ballot boxes and loot at the votes and sees as to in whose favour those evokes had been case. It has also been argued that it is not established on the record that more than five votes case in favour of the petitioner was invalid and it has be to been so found by the learned Election Commissioner. It is further stressed that merely because some persons have been entered in the election roll who may be in fact minors or may be non-existent is by itself no ground for stetting aside the election roll who may be in fact minors or may be non-existent is by itself no ground for setting aside the election for this is not a material irregularity in the election and the electoral roll as such is not subject to revision or scrutiny in the proceedings by way of election petition.
2. The points raised are in my opinion of considerable importance and are likely to arise very frequently in proceedings relating to election to local bodies. It is therefore highly desirable that this writ petition be disposed of by a larger Bench within three weeks. It is therefore highly desirable that this writ petition be disposed of by a larger Bench within three weeks. I would accordingly direct that the papers be laid before my Lords the Chief Justice for passing suitable order under clause (xx) proviso (b) read with clause (xviii) Rule 1 Chapter 3-B High Court Rules & Orders Vol. V. Order may be secured without undue delay.
ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH
3. This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and has been placed before us in pursuance of my order dated 13-10-1964 which may be read as a part of the present order.
4. the controversy in question arises out of election to the Municipal Committee Abohar from Ward No. 12 held on 24-9-1961 in which Sat Narain petitioner was declared successful by a majority of five votes. Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 in this Court claiming to be voters in the said ward filed an election petition under the Municipal Election Rules against the petitioner on 9-10-1961 on: various grounds stated wherein. We are only concerned with issue No. 2 which is in these terms:
"Is the election liable to be set aside due to material irregularties and corrupt practice?."
On 11-10-1963 Shri Hardayal Singh Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Election Commissioner trying the election petition came to the conclusion on this issue that 11 voters were either minors or bogus. After referring to some decisions and upholding the competency of an Election Tribunal to go into the question of minority of a voter and to its own conclusion on the point he held the material irregularities had been committed in the election which had certainly affected the result of the election. Finding that there was difference of only for votes between Sat Narain petitioners and Ram Sarup who was respondent No. 3 in the election petition the Election Commissioner opened the envelope of the ballot papers cast in favour of Sat Narain and found that substantial number of minor votes had been cast in his favour. Thus holding that mat
