BABURAO versus MANIKRAO AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 13-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BABURAO 
A 
v. 
MANIKRAO AND ANR. 
MAY 13, 1999 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution-Articles 173, 191-Representation of People Act, 1950-
Section 16 to 20-Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 33,36,100-
Disqualifications-Elections to State Legislative Assembly-Appearance of 
name of a candidate in electoral roll of more than one Constituency- C 
Whether a disqualification to contest from any one of the Constituencies-
Held, No-Objection u/s 17 could be raised. 
Representation of People Act, 1950-Sections 17, 18-Whether 
mandatory provisions-Held, No. 
D 
For election to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly the 
appellant and the first respondent filed noplinations to contest from Nilanga 
Assembly Constituency, Latur District. As the respondent's name was 
appearing in the electoral rolls of Nilanga Assembly Constituency and also 
Latur Assembly Constituency, the appellant raised objections to the E 
candidature of first respondent alleging that the respondent had incurred 
disqualification under the law relating to election of members to the 
Legislative Assembly and that the first respondent was not 'ordinarily resident' 
within the meaning of Section 20 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 
in Nilanga Constituency and, therefore, not qualified to contest the election. 
The High Court dismissed the election petition, rejecting the appellant's 
case that the first respondent was disqualified to contest the Nilanga 
Constituency as his name was found in two constituencies and holding that 
Sections 17 and 18 of the Act are not mandatory. 
This appeal had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. The 
appellant contended that the first respondent's name having been found in 
the electoral roll of more than one constituency, he had incurred the 
disqualification and his nomination ought to have been rejected when objection 
F 
G 
was raised by the appellant before the Returning officer and that the High 
Court erred in holding that Sections 17 and 18of1950 Act are not mandatory. H 
547 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent submitted that as long as the name of the first 
respondent finds a place in the electoral roll of Nilanga Constituency and 
the nomination of the first respondent was filed on the basis, the question 
of production of the electoral roll relating to Latur Constituency did not 
arise and that the objection as to the inclusion of the first respondent's name 
in Nilanga Constituency, if at all, ought have been raised before his name 
B was validly included in the electoral roll of the constituency as once the name 
finds a place in the electoral roll validly published, the same cannot be 
challenged on any ground to oppose the nomination when filed from that 
constituency. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is nothing to suggest in Section 16 of the 
Representation of People Act, 1950 that ifa person's name finds a place in 
more than one constituency that would automatically entail disqualification 
from contesting in any one of the constituencies. Section 2(1) (e) of the 
D Representation of People Act of 1951 refers disqualification u/s 16of1950 
Act alone while interpreting the word 'Elector' and has not mentioned any 
contravention of Section 17 as disqualification. Though Sectio.n 17 of 1950 
Act expressly states that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the 
electoral roll for more than one constituency, but if a person's name finds 
a place in more than one constituency, it does not automatically entail the 
E disqualification under Section 16. Objection under Section 17 could have 
been successfully raised to prevent the name of respondent no. 1 being 
included in Nilanga Constituency. [560-G-H; 561-A-B) 
F 
1.2. There is no ground u/s 16 of the 1950 Act and Articles 173 and 
191 of the Constitution of India to hold that the nomination of the first 
respondent ought to have been rejected. As the respondent 1 did not file his 
nomination to the Nilanga constituency on the basis of his name finding a 
place in Latur Constituency, he filed the nomination to Nilanga Constituency 
only on the basis of his name finding a place in that Constituency. 
G 
Therefore, reliance placed on Section 33(5) was misconceived. Likewise, 
the election of the first respondent cannot be declared void under any one 
of the grounds set out in Section 100 of the Act. The appellant did not raise 
any objection 

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