Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. S. GARG
CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHATURVEDI - Appellant
Versus
RAJESH NANDINI SINGH - Respondents
ELECTION PETITION 31 Of 1994
Decided On : 08/31/1998
ELECTION PETITION - [KEYWORD] - ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATION FORM - SUBSTITUTION OF NAME - CORRECTION OF ELECTORAL ROLL - JURISDICTION OF RETURNING OFFICER - SECTION 33(4) OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - RULE 8 OF CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961 - INTERPRETATION - POWER OF RETURNING OFFICER TO DIRECT CORRECTION OF ELECTORAL ROLL - IGNORING OF MISNOMER OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTION - MATERIAL AFFECTING RESULT OF ELECTION - SECTION 127-A OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - VIOLATION - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a voter of Assembly constituency No. 83 Kotma, challenged the election of the respondent, who filed her nomination as a candidate of National Congress (I) for the said constituency. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's name was not recorded in the voters list of the said Assembly for the year 1993, and that her nomination form was illegally accepted by the Returning Officer. The respondent contended that her name was recorded in the voters list of Pushprajgarh Assembly Constituency No. 86, Shahdol, and that she had filed her nomination form in the name of Rajeshwari Singh, which was her correct name, though she was commonly known as Rajesh Nandini Singh. The Returning Officer, after receiving an application and affidavit from the respondent, directed correction of her name in the ballot papers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Returning Officer had jurisdiction to overlook the inaccurate description or misnomer in the respondent's name, as provided under Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 8 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The Court found that the respondent had filed four nomination forms, two in the name of Rajeshwari Singh and two in the name of Rajesh Nandini Singh, and that all four forms were accepted in the name of Rajeshwari Singh. The Court also found that the Returning Officer had directed the O. I. C. (Election) to take necessary action, and that the O. I. C. had observed that the document be considered while making Form 7-A. The Court held that the Returning Officer was justified in directing that the respondent's correct name be published in the ballot papers, and that the petitioner's contention that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to direct inclusion of names in the ballot papers was not tenable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Officer illegally accepted the nomination form of Rajesh Nandini Singh (the returned candidate) and it has adversely affected the election results? 2. Whether the respondent has violated the provisions of S. 127-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and if yes, it is a fact? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file the present election petition and the election petition at his instance is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Returning Officer had jurisdiction to overlook the inaccurate description or misnomer in the respondent's name, as provided under Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 8 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. 2. The Returning Officer was justified in directing that the respondent's correct name be published in the ballot papers. 3. The petitioner's contention that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to direct inclusion of names in the ballot papers was not tenable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE present Election petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a voter of Assembly constituency No. 83 Kotma to challenge the elections of the said constituency.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Assembly Elections were notified as per the provisions of S. 31 of Representation of the People Act. According to the programme, the date for submission of the nomination form was 23-10-93 to 30-10-93. The date of scrutiny was 1-11-93. The date for the withdrawal was 3-11-93 and the date for polling was fixed on 24-11-93. The respondent No. 1 filed nomination as candidate of National Congress (I) for the Assembly Constituency, Kotma (No. 83 ). According to the petitioner she had filed the nomination paper and declared her name as Rajesh Nandini Singh wife of Dalveer Singh. As alleged the said name Rajesh Nandini Singh was not recorded in the voters list of the said Assembly for the year 1993. On the other hand, at serial No. 18 name of Rajeshwari Singh wife of Dalveer Singh was recorded in the voters list. The respondent No. 1 (The Returned Candidate) filed her nomination somewhere on29 or 30-11-1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said nomination form which deserved to be rejected was illegally accepted by the Returning Officer. According to the petitioner, she was a voter in Pushpraj garh Assembly Constituency No. 86, Shahdol. The petitioner submits that before accepting the nomination form filed by the respondent, the Returning Officer took an affidavit and directed correction of the name. The petitioner submits that corrections can be made in accordance with Rule 26 of Electoral Rules, 1960 and if the name of the voter was not corrected in the electoral roll an application could be given to the Registering Officer, who after giving a public notice could correct the name. The petitioner submits that the last date of the nomination was 30-11-93 and name of the respondent No. 1 could not be included in the electoral roll nor could it be corrected. According to the petitioner, if some entry has been made by the Registration Officer, the same is contrary to law and is illegal. The petitioner submits that name of any person cannot be included or amended in the voters list after the election process has started. The petitioner submits that the Returning Officer illegally received an application and affidavit from the respoindent and illegally ordered correction of name of the respondent. It is submitted that the action of the Returning Officer was contrary to law. It is further submitted that in accordance with S. 33 (4) of the Representation of People Act, a nomination form could be submitted. It is contended that if the nomination form was not illegally accepted, the respondent could not be permitted to take part in the elections. It is further contended that name of the respondent was corrected because of the influence of her husband who is Ex-State Finance Minister and sitting Member of Parliament from Shahdol Constituency. It is also submitted that the returned candidate was not qualified and there has been a failure in complying with the provisions of S. 33 of the Representation of the People Act.
( 3 ) NUMBER of other allegations were also made relating to the corrupt practise but the said allegations were later on withdrawn. It is contended by the petitioner that during the election campaign the returned candidate used pamphlets and posters. In the said pamphlets and posters the name of the printer and publisher were not mentioned, therefore use of the said pamphlets and posters was contrary to the directions. It is further submitted that respondent had committed violation of S. 127-A of Representation of the People Act, therefore also the election of respondent No. 1 deserves to be set aside.
( 4 ) THE respondent in her return admitting the material facts about the notification of the election, date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal but has denied the material fac
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
