Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash, J.
PREM PAL SHASTRI - Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHANDRA YADAV - Respondents
Election Petn. 23 Of 1985
Decided On : 10/15/1986
ELECTION LAW - SYMBOL ALLOTMENT - POWER OF ELECTION COMMISSION - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - BREACH OF ORDER 1968 - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF ACT OR RULES - MATERIAL AFFECT ON RESULT OF ELECTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate in the general elections to the U. P. Legislative assembly, held in February-March. 1985, challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that the result of the election, in so far as, it concerns the respondent was materially affected because of the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, of the Act. 1951, of the Conduct of Elections Rules. 1961 (the rules 1961) and of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order. 1968 (the Order 1968).
Finding of the Court:
1. The Election Commission was not empowered to issue a direction in derogation of the provisions, as made in para 13 of the Order 1968. 2. The direction (Ext. P-6) being conditional depending on the contingency of the ballot papers having been printed, in the Court's view that could not have been given effect to, as substantial printing had been done. 3. The Election Commission was not empowered, to interfere with the symbol already allotted to the respondent by the Returning Officer and which allotment had become final under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10. 4. The petitioner failed to establish that the result of the election, in so far as it concerned to the respondent, was materially affected.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised authorisation of symbol in favour of the petitioner by the Lok Dal party was filed by the petitioner with the Election Commission before 3 p. m. on 9-2-1985? If so. its effect". 2. Whether filing of revised authorisation with the Election Commission is valid? If not. its effect? 3. Whether any direction w. as given by the Election Commission to the Returning Officer to accept the revised authorisation of symbol and allot the symbol of Lok Dal party to the petitioner? If so, its effect? 4. Whether the Election Commission is empowered to interfere with the allotment of symbol by the Returning Officer? 5. Whether the result of the election, in so far it concerns the respondent, has been materially affected due to non-allotment of the Lok Dal symbol to the petitioner? 6. Whether the petition discloses any cause of action? 7. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission having issued general direction in the Order 1968 covering the field of allotment of symbol, it was not open to the Commission to issue the direction (Ext P-6) on 16-2-1985 to the Returning Officer in utter disregard of the provisions, made in para 13. 2. The direction (Ext. P-6) having been given by the Commission in derogation of the express provisions made in Para 13 of the Order 1968, it cannot be said that the power to issue such a direction can be identified with or can be traced to any provision either of the Act or the Rules or the Order 1968. 3. The direction (Ext. P-6) being conditional, depending on the contingency of the ballot papers having been printed, in the Court's view that could not have been given effect to, as substantial printing had been done. 4. The Election Commission was not empowered, to interfere with the symbol already allotted to the respondent by the Returning Officer and which allotment had become final under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10. 5. The petitioner failed to establish that the result of the election, in so far as it concerned to the respondent, was materially affected.
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 the act 1951 ). by the petitioner, who was a candidate in the general. elections to the U. P. Legislative assembly, held in February-March. 1985. from 349 Nidhauli Kalan Assembly Constituency, district Etah. The last date for filing nomination papers was 6-2-1985 and the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers was 9-2-1985. The poll in the aforesaid constituency took place on 5-3-1985 and the respondent, who contested the election on Lok Dal symbol, was declared elected on 6th Man. 1985.
( 2 ) THE prayer in the election petition is that the election of the respondent from the aforesaid constituency be declared void and be set aside on the ground that the result of the election, in so far as, it concerns the respondent was materially affected because of the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, of the Act. 1951. of the Conduct of Elections Rules. 1961 (the rules 1961) and of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order. 1968 (the Order 1968 ).
( 3 ) THE grounds for getting the election of the respondent declared void have been stated in paragraphs and the facts relating to those grounds have been stated in paras 8 to 43 in the petition. The petitioner filed his nomination papers declaring his intention that he would contest the election on Lok Dal symbol on 2nd Feb. . 1985. The last date for withdrawal was 9-2-1985. The respondent had filed authorisation in regard to Lok Dal symbol and he was allotted the said symbol. The case of the petitioner is that Chaudhry Charan Singh. President of the Lok Dal. "had issued a direction authorising the petitioner to file nomination as authorised candidate of aforesaid Lok Dal (D. M. K. P.) party from 349 Nidhauli Kalan Assembly Constituency" and the same was filed with the Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission) at 2. 55 p. m. on 9-2-1985 by the petitioner. It is stated in para 19 of the petition that the President of the lok Dal "had also issued a letter addressed to the Returning Officer 349 Nidhauli Kalan constituency in the district of Etah dt. 9-2-1985 stating therein that if any other candidate has submitted b form claiming to be our partieys approved candidate the same be treated as cancelled and that the authorisation issued in favour of election petitioner Prem Pal Shastri be treated to be duly issued authorisation from the Lok Dal Party. " It is stated that the Commission gave the assurance to the petitioner that a suitable direction would be issued to the Returning officer by means of a telex message in that behalf. It is stated in para 31 that the petitioner also filed authorisation with the Returning Officer on 9-2-1985 at 8. 40 p. m. In para 33. the averment is that the Commission by telex message dt. 16-2-1985 (Ext. P-6) informed the Chief Electoral officer. U. P. . Lucknow. as well as the Returning Officer of the relevant constituency that the delay in submitting the revised form b was condoned and the Commission further directed that the petitioner be allotted the Lok Dal symbol in supersession of earlier authorisation. Such direction was given on 16-2-1985 subject to the condition that the ballot papers of the constituency "have not been printed". Thereafter the District Election Officer addressed a letter dt. 17-2-1985 (Ext. P-5) to the Government Printing Press. Allahabad, that further printing of the ballot papers be stopped. The Government Press. Allahabad informed that more than 50. 000 ballot papers had been printed till the evening of 16-2-1985. On 18-2-1985. the Returning officer had sent a radiogram (Ext, P-4) to the Commission reporting the compliance of the telex message (Ext. P-5 ) that Lok Dal symbol had been allotted to the petitioner, subject to the condition as stated in the telex message (Ext. P-6) and informing the Commission that more than 50,000 ballot papers had been printed according
AI
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
