LexB. DANDAPANI PATRA versus RETURNING OFFICER-CUM-SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BERHAMPUR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c B. DANDAPANI PATRA v. RETURNING OFFICER-CUM-SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BERHAMPUR AND OTHERS NOVEMBER 8, 1989 [M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) Representation of the People Act, 1950/ Representation of the People Act, 1951/Registration of Electors Rules, 1980: Sections 16and 21/Section 33/Rules J6-21A and 22-Candidate-Elector of different constituency-Producing of attested copy of relevant part of electoral roll as it stood before final revision-Rejection of nomination paper- Validity of-Attested copy of electoral roll-What is. I The appellant was a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly. As he was standing for election from a constituency other D than the one in which he was an elector, he filed an attested copy of, the relevant part of the electoral r.oll relating to the constituency in which he was an elector, along with the nomination paper. On an objection'by one of the. candidates, the Returning Officer rejected the. appellant's nomination paper for non-compliance with Section 33( 5) of the Rep- resentation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant filed an Election E Petition before the High Court, which dismissed the same. In the appeal filed before this Court, the appellant contended that ,since he had produced before the Returning Officer an attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll of the constituency in which he was an elector, the rejection of his nomination paper on the ground of F non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the said Act was wrong and bad in law. Dismissing the appea1, this Court, HELD: The publication of the integrated roll is not essential for G the revision of the electoral roll to be complete and the electoral roll with the amendments duly published becomes the final electoral roll for the constituency. [ 103D I · ' In the instant case, admittedly, the electoral roll of the State Assembly was directed to be revised and was, in fact, revised as' on H January 1, 1984 and the supplementary electoral roll notifying the 100 B.D. PATRA v. RETURNING OFFICER [KANIA, J.] 101 changes to be incorporated on the revision was published and available before February 1985. [ 102F J However, what the appellant produced before the Returning Of- ficer was not an attested copy of the final electoral roll for the said constituency although the final roll was available, but only an attested copy of the electoral roll as it stood on July 21, 1983. The production of such attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll as it stood before the final revision cannot amount to compliance with the provi- sions of sub-section ( 5) of Section 33 of the said Act. His nomination was, therefore, rightly rejected. [103F] RanjitSingh v. Pritam Singh & Ors., [1966] 3 SCR 543, relied on. Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar v. Gene Govind Kadam & Ors., [1988] 3 Judgments Today 662, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2542 A B c (NCE) of 1986. D • From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.1986 of the Orissa High Court in Election Petition No. 7 of 1985. S.P. Singh and S.K. Jain for the Appellant. G .L. Sanghi, M .A Firoz and R.K. Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E KANIA, J. This is"/n appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing Election Petition No. . F 7 of 1985 filed by the appellant in that Court. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the impugned judgment of the High Court and hence, little purpose would be served in setting them out here again. It should be sufficient to note only the few facts required to be set out to appreciate the controversy arising G before us, The election in question was to the Legislative Assembly of the Orissa State from 74-Gopalpur (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Consti- tuency. This election was held in March 1985. The last date for filing the nomination papers was February 8, 1985. The date of scrutiny was H 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. as February 9, 1985. The last date for withdrawal of the nominations .\ was February 11, 1985, February 10, 1985 being a Sunday. The appel- lant duly filed his nomination papers for the seat and along with the other papers, he filed an attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll relating to 67 Sorada Assembly Constituency in which he was an elector. This was required because he was standing for election B from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.