AZMAT KHAN versus KHILLAN SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 795 · Decided: 08-11-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' t 
.. 
t 
795 
AZMATKHAN. 
v. 
KHILLAN SINGH & OTHER.S 
Nov.ember 8, 1983 
[S • .MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND E.S. VBl'IKATARAMIAH, JJ.J. 
~epresent~ti~~ of the P;op/e Act, 1951-Sec. 97-Recrimination Petition-
Necessity and effect of. 
. ' 
· . 
The .appellant, who was· a returned candidate, filed a re~riminatiori 
petition in the election petition filed by the·first respondent and another. As ·a 
result Or the Tecouflt to. which all the parti.es had agreed;··the High cOurt 
declared ~he first. resPondent .as e.lected. Henc~ this·api)e·a1. 
Dismissing thC appeal. 
HELD : The case of Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal. on. which the ·appellant 
relies· iS.Or no assistance to· him ·because t_he facts of the present Case,, are c~eS:rly· 
·distinguishable from that.case. In.that case the r.eturned candidate did ilot 
. recriminate as provided under sec. 97 of the Representation or the People Act, 
1951. · In .the instant Case, the appellant. had admittedly recriminated and in• 
the recri.mination petition one of the .grounds taken related to the-errors 
"committed at the time of.. the counting or" votes Of the ls~. r.espondent by .tire 
Returning Officer .• The appellant had· a"ls·o 
agree~d tb the rect?unting of the 
votes secured by all·the parties. [796 E-OJ 
Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal, [1964] 
6 S.C.R. 54, referred to and 
disti~gUis~ed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 
1983. 
Civil. Appeal No. 236 of · 
• 
. 
Froin tht Judgment and Order dated the J Ith January, 1983 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Co,urt.in Election Petition No.2 
of f982. 
4 
M; C. Bhandare and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Respondent. 
. The Order of the Court was ,delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. This election appeal arises out of the election. 
held in 1980 from the constituency No. 5() called Hathin to th~ 
A 
B 
c . 
D 
... 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
. c 
D 
796 
. SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS 
[1984) .1 s.c.ll. 
• 
Legisiative Assembly of the State of Haryana •. At the counting held 
by the Returning Officer, the Appellant secured 12,828 votes whereas 
respondent No. I Khillan Singh got 12,655 votes and one Ramjii'!"I 
got 12,2 l3 votes. 'Accordingly the .appellant was declared as elected. · 
Aggrieved by the result of the election, Khillan Singh and Ramjilal 
filed election petitions in the High Court. In the course of the 
election petition, the appellant filed a recrimination petition in which 
one of the grounds related to tho errors committed in the co \In ting 
of votes ofrespbndent No .. I. All the parties agreed that the court 
should Order a recount and that . the parties wpu!d be bo'und by the 
result of the recount. · The recount was accordingly held as a result 
of which Kbillan Singh respondent No. I got 12,751 i.e. tl).e highest 
number of valid votes and the appellant got 12,698 votes. In view· 
of the higher votes secured by Khillan Singh respondent No. I ·at the 
«ecount ordered by the High Court, bis petition was allowed, the 
election of the appellant wa.s set aside and Khillan Singh was declared 
as elected. This appeal' is filed against the. decision of the ' 
High Court. 
In support ofthe appeal,. Mr. Bhandare with the, usual inge-
. nuity pressed only one point before. us. .He submitted on the basis 
pf the Judgment ofthis .Court in labor Singh v. Genda Lal(') that 
even if the result had gone in favour of respondent No. I he could· 
E • 
not have been declared elected. We have gone. through this authority 
and we find that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguish-
able. In the decision referred to above the returned candidate did ·not 
recriminate as provided.under section 97 of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951. and this was the important ground on which the 
F 
G 
H 
Court said that it could not make any attack against the alternative 
claim made by the petitioner. In the instant case, the appellant bad 
. admittedly recriminated and in the recrimination petition one 'of the 
. grounds taken related t.o the . errors committed at the time of . the 
counting· of .votes of the Ist respondent by. the Returnil)g Officer. 
The."appellant bad also ag~ed to the re.counting of the votes sec!lred 
by all the parties. In these circumstances, this case does not appear 
to be of any assistance to the appellant. The decision :of the High . 
•· Court is.in accordance with the result of the recount ordered by it. ·• 
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed but in the 
circumstances of the case 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.