BRIJ MOHAN versus SAT PAL

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 13-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

Ht·· 
IlRIJ MOHAN 
v. 
SAT PAL 
March 13, 1985 
(S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J 
The Representation of People Act 1951, Section 33 Assembly Ele.c_tion-
Nomination Paper of Candidate-Mitakes-Regarding serial numli_er, part 
number, house number-Nomination .paper rejected on scrutiny by Returning~ 
Officer-Rejection whether valid_:_Mistakes whether of a substantial character. 
A· 
c 
'lhe respondent in the appeal an election, filed an election petition chat-
D~J 
lenging the election of the appellant to the Assembly. 
He contended in the 
petition that in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from 
Jind 
constituency one Dog Ram filed nomination paper. 
His name was proposed 
by Ram Pratap, an elector ~f the constituency. 
Dog Ram-Candidate was 
registered as an elector at serial No. 177 and house No. 57 in part 39 of the 
electoral roll of the constituency whereas the proposer was registered as elector 
at serial No. 313 and house No. 6 in part 39 of the same constituency. 
The 
E, 
name and postal address of Dog Ram were correctly given in the nomination 
paper but the part of the electoral roll was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by 
an inadvertant mistake committed by the person who filed the nomination 
paper. 
Similarly, in the case of the proposer, the serial number of the elector· 
and the number of the constituency were given correctly but the number of his 
house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the part of t'he electoral 
roll. 
At the time of scrutiny no other candidate or proposer objected to the 
F -,; 
acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer on 
his own rejected the nomination paper on the ground that particulars of the : 
candidate and the proposer have been wrongly entered in the nominati~n paper. 
The appellant contested the election petition contending that the Return-
ing Officer had compared the admittedly inaccurate particulars given in the 
nomination paper with those entered in the part of the.voters' list mentioried in 
G ~} 
the nomination paper and found· them to be incorrect and asked candidate 
Dog Ram-to show the names of himself and his proposer in the electoral 
roU and that as the canClidate was unable to do so he rejected the nomination 
paper and was right' in doing so. 
· In the nomination paper the serial numbers in the voters' list of the 
candidate and his proposer have been correctly given as 177 and 313 respec.. 
H'' 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G. 
• 
t19ssl j s.c.il.. 
tively but the part numbers have been given wrongly as 57 and 6 respectively 
which are their respective house numbers instead of the correct part No. 39, 
In the appeal to the High Court the question was as to whether the 
nomination paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected. 
On the evidence led 
by the parties the Single Judge found that the candidate Dog Ram and his 
proposer were registered as voters in the constituency and were qualified to 
contest the election and propose the candidate respectively. 
It was further 
found that errors in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and the 
proposer in the electoral roll an1 the nomination paper do not constitute 
defects of a substantial character as mentioned in the proviso to Section 33(4) 
of the Act. 
The Single Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 that when he 
and the candidate presented the nomination paper the Returning ,Officer told 
them that it was in order and held that the Returning Officer had thus tripped 
them into .an error and observed that had he told them that there were s0me 
discrepancies in the nomination paper they would have either made the correc-
tions then and there and Would have gone more fully prepared to meet objec-
tions at the time of the scrutiny. 
Accordingly the election petition was allowed 
and appellant's election was declared as void. 
On the ground that the nomi-
nation paper 9f Dog Ram was improperly rejected. 
The elected candidate appealed to this Court. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD : 1. 
The Returning Officer in the instant case could not be said 
to have improperly rejected the n•JIDination paper of Dog Ram. 
[340G} 
2. 
It is not poss_ible to say generally and in the abstract that all errors 
in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and thec;>roposer in the 
electoral rolls or nomination papers do not constitute defects of a substantial 
character. 
They would not be defects of a substantial character only if at the 
time of the scrutiny the

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