BHAG MAL versus CH. PARBHU RAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 30-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
1099 
BHAGMAL 
v. 
CH. PARBHU RAM AND OTHERS 
October 30, 1984 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI 
MUKHARJI, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-S. 27 (1)-Recrimination 
petition-What is the effect of omission to make recrimination petition by 
A 
B 
returntd candidate-In absence of recrimination petition Election Tribunal 
C 
has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether any wrong votes were counted 
in favour of election petitioner-Parties must con/orm strictly to the teller of 
the law in regard to the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Election petition-Powers 
of the Election Tribunal (High Court) to decide election petition-Powers are 
wholly the creature of statute-Election petition is not an action at law or a 
D 
suit in equity-Election of successful candidate 
1101 to be lightly interfered with 
-Purity of eleclion process must be safeguarded. 
Reliefs as are available 
according to law can only be granted 
Representation of People Act, 1951-S. 97-A rule of procedure-
Must be so construed that it serves wi.,hes of the voters. 
Interpretation of statute-Court must construe procedural provision of 
law in such a manner tliat procedure does not defeat purpose or object of la'w-
Where plain and literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a ma11J. 
festly absurd and unjust result Court may modify language used or even do 
some violence to it so as to achieve the obvious intention of th! legislature and 
produce a rational construction and just result. 
The appelJant was declared elected as a member of the Haryana 
Legislative Assembly from the Sadbura Scheduled Caste Reserved Consti-
tuency in the election held on 19th May, 1982. 
The contest was between 
the appellant and 12 others including respondent 1. 
The appellaot secured 
20981 votes while respondent 1 secured 20971 votes, that is the appellant 
secured 10 votes more than the respondent 1. 
Respondent 1 filed an 
election petition in the High Court challenging the election of the appellant 
on the ground that the counting of votes was not proper. 
Respondent 1 
prayed not only for recounting of the votes but also for declaration that 
he was the duly elected candidate. 
Respondent 1 alleged that on his 
application to which the appellant had also consented, though the Returning 
Officer had initially ordered recounting of all the ballot papers, the 'ballot 
papen of the appellanl aDd respongent I ouly were re~9qnteg and t4erefor e 
E 
F 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) I S.C.R. 
the recount was void. 
The respondent 1 also alleged that in the recounting, 
the Returning Officer had improperly rejtcted about 100 ballot papers said 
to have been cast in favour of respondent 1 as invalid under the influence 
of the Naib Tehsildar (Election). 
The issue framed by the High Court 
was as to whether respondent 1 was entitled to recount 
The High Court 
found that the discretidn of the Returning Officer in the matter of rejection 
of some doubtful ballot papers had been influenced by the opinion of the 
Naib Tehsildar. 
In those circumstances, the High Court found a pr/ma 
facie case made out for ordering rechecking and recounting of the rejected 
ballot papers. 
On March 15, 1983 the High Court ordered scrutiny and 
recount of only the rejected ballot paper~ of the appellcnt and respondent 
l by District Judge (Vigilance), Puojab. 
The High Court was of the 
opinion that no case had been made out for ordering recounting of all the 
votes. 
The appellant filed a special leave petition against the High Court~s 
order dated 15.3.1983 which was distnissed by this Court. 
After the 
recounting it ~as found that respondent l and the appellant had 
gained 
14 and 8 moro votes respectively in addition -to the votes already counted 
in their favour by the Returning Officer. 
The High C'..ourt held that since 
the appellant had not filed any recrimination application under s. 97 (1) 
of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act'), the rejected votes of the appellant, the returned candidate, could not 
be secrutinised and the appellant could not have the benefit of the 8 ballot 
papers found to have been wrongly rejected. 
The High Court found that 
the result of the returned candidate (appellant) had been materially affected 
by the wrongful rejection of valid votes cast in favour of respondent i and 
it acc

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