BAIDYANATH PANJIAR versus SITARAM MAHTO & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 13-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
'! 
839 
BAIDYANATH PANJIAR 
v. 
SITARAM MAHTO & ORS. 
August 13, 1969 
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1950-Elections-Section 22, sub-s. 
(3), s. 21(2)-Jnclusion of names in electoral roll after last date of filing 
nomination-Validity of votes cast-Section 22(3) if mandatory. 
Sub-section (3) of s. 23 provides that no direction for the inclusion of 
narne in the electoral roll of a constitue!l.cy shall be given after the last 
C 
date for making nomination for an election in that constituency and be-
fore the completi~n of that election. 
The appellant's election to the Bihar Legislative Council was challeng-
ed on the ground that some of the votes cast in his _favour were not valid 
because the names of the voters were included in the electoral roll after 
the last date for filing nomination. The High Court set aside the elec-
tion and dc•clared the second respondent 
elec~d· since on counting the 
D 
validly cast votes the second respondent secured more votes 
than the 
appellant. 
E 
F 
On the question whether it was within the competence of the electoral 
registration officer to amend the electoral rolls 
after the last date for 
making the nomination was over, 
HELD : The legislative mandate like the one embodied in s. 2J <>ub-s. 
(3) must be considered as mandatory not merely because of th~ 1nnguage 
employed in that sub .. section but also in view of the purpose beh:nd the 
provision. The sub-section does not deal with any mode or procedure 
in the matter of registering the voters. 
It interdicts 
the concerned offi-
cers from interfering with the electoral rolls under the prescribed circums-
tances. It puts a stop to the power conferred on them. There'fore it is 
not a question of .irregulat exercise of power but a lack Of power. [842 
~~ 
. 
There is no conflict between sub-s. (2) 
of s. 23 and sub-s. (2) of 
s. 27 because a fair reading Of the various clauses in s. 27(2) will make 
it clear that it is the electoral roll of a constituency as it stood on the 
last date for making f Pc nominations for an election in that constituency 
that is to be considered final for the purpose of that election. [842 HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 25 of 
1969. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated December 11, 1968 
of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1968. 
D. Goburdhun, for the appellant. 
:fl 
Birendra Prasad Sinha, S. K. Bagga, Hardev Singh and S. 
Bagga, for respondent No. 1. 
Hardev Singh, for respond-mts Nos. 2 and 3. 
840 
Sl:PREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment ci the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
The principal question raised in this appeal under 
s. I I 6A of the Representation of People Act, 1 951 (to be herein-
after referred to as the Act) is as to the scope of s. 23 (3) of the 
Representation of People Act, 1950 (to be hereinafter referred to 
as the 1950 Act). A few subsidiary contentions have also been 
canvassed. They will be considered at the appropriate stage. 
The election petition from which this appeal arises relates to 
the Darbhanga Local Authorities Constituency of the Bihar Legis-
lative Council. The calendar for the election for that constituency 
was as follows : 
I. La~t date for filing nomination papers 
2-4-1968. 
2. Date of scrutiny of nomination papers 
3. Last date for withdrawal of candidatures 
4. Date of Poll 
4-4-1968. 
6-4-1968. 
28-4-1968. 
A 
c 
5. Date of declaration of result 
29-4-1968. 
D 
Originally live candidates submitted their nomination for the 
election in question. On scrutiny all of them were held to have 
been validly nominated. Two of them later withdrew their candi-
datures within the period prescribed leaving in the field 
Shri 
Baidyanath Panjiar, the appellant herein, Shri Raj Kumar Maha-
seth, respondent No. 2 and Shri Gangadhar, respondent No. 3. 
There were six polling stations in :he comtituency. 134 vo:~s were 
polled out of which 33 votes were poll::d at Dalsingsarai oolling 
station. 
Counting of the votes showed that the appe;iant had 
secured 45, the second respondent 49 and the third respondent 40, · 
first preference vote~. 
As none of them obtained an absolute 
majority of the votes cast. the third respcndent was eliminated and 
his secc.nd preference votes were :aken into consideration. 
14 of 
his sec.Jnd pref~1ence votes went IC' 
th~ appellant ~ncl 5 to the 
second respondent. l11er

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