B. M. RAMASWAMY versus B. M. KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 30-07-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

38.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
479 
B. M. RAMASWAMY 
v· 
B. M. KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SrNHA, C. J., S. J. IMAM: K, SuBBA RAO, K. 
N. W'ANCHOO, J. c. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
. 
Election Diepute-Validity of 
election 
challenged -
Authenticated liBtB of voterB-Autlwrity of courtB to inter/er.-
Mysore Village Panchayate and Local Hoards Act, 1959 (Mys.JO. 
of 1959\ sB. 9, 10, 13-Mysnre Pancltayats and 'l'aluk Boards 
Elettion Ruie1, 1959, r. 3-Representation oj the People Act, 
1950 (43of1950), ss. 23, 24, 30-Representation rif tl;e People 
Rules, 1956, Rule 26. 
· 
Elections were held to a l'anchayat in the State of 
Mysore. The appellant and five others filed their nomination 
papers within the prescribed date. 
The appellant and 
respondent2 were duly declared elec1ed. 
Respondent I 
filed an election petition under s. 13 of the Mysore Village 
Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, for a declaration 
that the appellant. wa• not duly el.ected and he himself was 
duly elect<d. 
The Munsif held that on the date fixed for 
filing of nomination papers, the name of the appellant was 
not in the authenticated list of voters and, therefore, he was 
not entitled to file his nomination papers. The election of 
the appellant was set a.side. 
The High Court upheld the 
conclusion of the Munsif oc the basis of a different reasoning. 
It held that though the 
name of the appellant was 
included before the prescribed date in the electoral roll of 
the legislative const;tuency under s. 23 of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1950, it was so included in direct violation 
of r. 26 of the Representation of the People Rules, 1956, and, 
therefore, the said inclusion was void. The appellant came 
to this Court by special leave. 
Heid, that in view of s. I 0 of the Act, it could not be 
said that there was any improper acceptance of the nomina· 
tion papers of the appellant. 
As his name was in the list of 
voters, he was qualified to be elected as a member of the 
Panchayat. There was no provision in the Act which autho· 
rised the High Court to set aside the election on the ground 
that though the name of a candidate was in the list, it had 
been included therein illegally. The action of the Electoral 
~eglstration Officer in including the name of the appell<int 
' 
1902-, 
.. '· 
·-~ 
196$ 
1 
BJ.! .. B,amaJwamy 
' 
.. 
i IJ.JL; Krishnamurthy 
Saib~• Rao J. 
• 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
in the Electoral Roll might be illegal, but the same could not 
be questioned in a civil court. The mistake could be rectified 
only in the manner prescribed by law by preferring an appeal 
under r. 24 of the Rules or by resorting to any other approp· 
riate remedy. The action of the Electoral Registration Officer 
was not a nullity. He had admittedly jurisdiction to entertain 
the application for inclusion of the name of the appellant in 
the Electoral Roll and take such action as he deemed fit. The 
non-compliance 
with 
the procedure prescribed did not 
affect his jurisdiction, although that might render his action 
illeg'\I. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDIOSION: Civil Appeal 
No. 233 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 2, 1961, of the Mysore High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 814 of 1961. 
B. Vendantiengar and 8. N. Andley, for the 
appellant. 
. ' 
The respondents did not appear. 
1962. July 30'. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SuBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave 
arises out of a. dispute in respect of the election 
to the Panchayat of Byappanahalli, from its first 
constituency, in the State of Mysore. 
The calendar of events for the said election 
was as follows: 
·Notification of election 
... 6-2-1960 
Date by which candidates 
had to file nomination papers 
16·3-1960 
Date of the scrutiny of nomina-
tion papers. 
Poll. 
p~o1ar~tion of res~lt. 
~ : ! "'>I 
.• 
18-3-1960 
13-4-1960 
,._, 
l~-4-19(_)0 
• 
I 
,J 
3 S.C.R. 
' 
.!. 
! 
~ 
' 
J 
' 
t 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
4Si 
: The appellant and five others filed their nor~ination 
' papers within the prescribed date. The polhng took 
'place on the scheduled date, namely April 13, 1960. 
, The candidates secured votes as ment10ned under: 
Appellant 
169 votes 
. Respondent 2 
158 votes 
Respondent 1 
128~votes 
Respondent 3 
115 votes 
Respondent 4 
38 votes 
Respondent 5 
46 votes 
I 
' 
The appellant and respondent 2 were duly declared 
elected to the Panchayat. 
. 
Respondent 1 filed an election petitio

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