LexDHARAM SINGH RATHI versus HARI SINGH M.L.A. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
469
DHAE.AM SINGH RATHI
v.
HARI SINGH M.L.A. & ORS.
May 2, 1975
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND s. MURTAzA FAzAL ALI, JJ.J
'
Representation of the People Act, 1951-S. 33(1)-Rr. 2(2) and (4) of
the Rules-Failure to supply postal address in the nomination paper-Effect of-
Failure of proper authentication. of tl11a11b n1ark-Efject of.
The appellant challenged the dcction of the respondent to the· State Assembly
on the ground that the nomination papers of two persons \11ere
improperly
rejected by the Returning Officer. The High Court held that the nomination
papers suffered from defects of non compliance with the requirements of s. 33 ( 1)
of the Representation of People Act and so were rightly rejected.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
A
B
c
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in its finding that the non1ination
paper of one of the persons was not improperly rejected by the Returning · D
Officer.
From a reading of s. 4 of the Rules and Form 28 it would be clear
that non-supp]y of postal address of the candidate or supplying such cryptic
address which virtually amounts to non-supply of address i~ a failure to comply
\<ith the provisions of s. 33(1) of the Act.
[471-G]
{2) (a) Nomination paper of the second person had been rightly rejected
by the· Returning Officer. The defect that the nante of the constituency of the
proposer was not given in the nomination form was of a substantial character.
[472-BJ
(b) There was clear violation of r. 2(2) of the Rules.
A thum\1 mark has
to be placed by the proposer on the nomination paper in the presence of the
Returning Officer and such officer, on being satisfied as to his identity, has to
attest the mark as being the mark of that person. · This has not been done in
this case. [ 4 72-BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1973
From the judgment and order dated the 8th day of December,
1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election
Petition No. 13 of 1972
B. R. L. lyangar and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.
J. P. Goyal and R. A. Gupta, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
F
G
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal under
section 116A of
the
Representation of the People Act, 1951-hereinafter called the Act,
by the election petitioner whose petition challenging the election of
H
respondent no. 1 (for brevity-the respondent) has been dismissed
by the High Court.
Eventually the only ground which could be
pressed in the Hill? Court to challenge the election of the respondent
~as that the. nommat10n papers .of two pers~ns namely Shri Jagan
Nath and Shn ~rabha Ram were improperly reiected b~ the Returning
'j
Officer. The High Court framed only two issues for trial and decided
--!o'i
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] SUPP· S.C.R.
A them against the appellant. It has held that the nomination papers-
both of Jagan '.~ath and Prabha Ram suffered from defects of substantial
character and, there:fore, they were rightly rejected by the Returning
Officer.
Jagan Nath filed two nomination papers in the prescribed Form
D No. 28 prescribed under rule 4 of the Conduct of the Election Rules
1961-hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
In both the papers in
the column "His postal address" the only thing written was-"Smalkha
Mandi". The Returning Officer rejected both the nomination papers
<Jf Jagan Nath on the ground that the candidate had not given the
name of his father and his full address.
The name given as Jagan
Nath and address as Smalkha Mandi were not sufficient. The Return-
C ing Officer described if as a technical error fit to be rectified but because
there was nobody present on behalf of the candidate at the time of
the scrutiny of the nomination papers the rectification could not be
made. Hence the nominations were rejected. Following the decisions
of this Court in Brijendralal Gupta and another v. Jwalaprasad and·
others(') and in Prahladdas Khandeiwal v. Narendra Kumar Salve(')
D the High Court has held that the nomination papers suffered from a
defact of non-compliance with the requireljlent of section 33 (1)
of
the Act and
that the
defect was of
a substantial character.
On-
consideration ,of the evidence adduced before it, it held :
E
"Thus in the established circumstances of the case, it was
manifest that the mention of Smalkha Mandi only, in the
nomination papers was no more than an
apology of an
address.
It was, according to Mr. Joginder PaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.