DILIP KUMAR GON versus DURGA PRASAD SINGH

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 04-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DILIP KUMAR GON 
v. 
DURGA PRASAD SINGH 
November 4, 1974 
[A, ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Eh·c1io11-Contes1 .from a general Constituency to seat in State Legislative 
Assembly~mission to strike ojf 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe' and to fill in candidate's 
caste iii nomination paper-If defective justifO'ing rejection of nomination paper. 
In relation to an election to the State Legislative Assembly from a general 
constituency, one candidate had not in the nomination paper (a) filled his specific 
caste in the blank meant for that purpose, and (b) he had, left the words 'Sche-
duled Caste' unscored. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper on 
the ground that his failure to d~lete ·the words 'Scheduled Caste' meant that he 
belonged to the scheduled caste which was not true, and consequently, the nomina-
tion papc:r was not filled up properly. The respondent was declared elected. 
ThC' High Court, holding that the candidate, whose nomination paper wu~ 
rejected by the 
Returnin~ Officer, had not 
properly filled his 
nomination 
paper, upheld the rejecl!on and dismissed the election petition challenging 
the respondent's election. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court. 
HEU> : (1) The seat for Which the candidates contested was not a re· 
sen~d seat. There is no statutory provision in the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951, or elsewhere which enjoins 
a candidate who is contesting 
t!)e election for a. general seat, and not for a reserved seat, to specify in his 
-declaration his caste or tribe. [571GJ 
· 
(2) The Returning Officer admitted in his evidence that at the time of 
the scrutiny of the nomination papers. he was aware !ha• the candidate, whose 
nomination paper he rejected, was no( a member of the scheduled caste and 
that 
he 
had 
deposited 
Rs. 250/ • as security. Therefore, the 
omis· 
sion to strike off scheduled cas.te/trire in 
the form did not amount to a 
defect in the eye of law, much less was it a defect of a substantial character, 
warranting the rejection of the nomination paper. [571H] 
Amo/ak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh [1968} 3, S.C.R. 246 followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1973. 
From the Judgment & Order dated the 6th February, 1973 of the 
Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1972. 
R. K. Garg, s·. C. Agarwala, S. S. !Jhatnagar and V. !. Francis, 
for the appellant. 
D. Goburdhan, for 1he respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J. Durga Prasad Singh, respondent herein, Khatir Ali 
.and Abdul Hamid, filed their nomination papers before the Returning 
Officer for contesting the election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly 
from 147-Jamtara. Assembly Constituency (General). 
The date for 
scrutiny of the nomination papers was February 9, 1972. The Re-
turning Officer rejected 
th1~ nomination papers of Khatir) Ali and 
Abdul Hamid ignoring the objections that were raised on their behalf. 
Durga Prasad Singh was declared duly elected. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
B 
o. K. GON v. o. P. SINGH (Sarkaria, 1.) 
571 
The appellant, an elector of the Constituency, filed an Election 
Petition challenging the election of Durga Prasad Singh inter alia on 
the ground that the nomination papers of Abdul Hamid and Khatir 
Ali had been improperly rejected. A learned single Judge of the High 
Court, who tried the Petition decided that issue against the petitioner, 
and in consequence, dismissed the Petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
Before us, Mr. R. K. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant has 
confined his arguments to the rejection of the nomination paper of 
Abdul Hamid, only. It is submitted that the defect on the basis of 
which the Re.turning Officer rejected Abdul Ha!Ijid's 
nomination 
papers, was not a 'defect' 'in the eye of law. 
At any rate, proceeds 
the argument,. it was not a defect of a substantial character which 
could jµstify rejection of the nomination papers. 
There is merit in this contention. 
What happened was that in the column of the printed nomination 
form, meant for making a declaration of the candidates' of the Sche-
duled Caste/Tribe contesting for a Reserved Seat, Abdul Hamid had 
not (a) filled his specific caste in the bank meant for that purpose and 
further, (b) he had in that column, left the words 'Scheduled Caste' 
unscored. 
The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers on 
the ground that the failure of the candidate to 
delete the words 
'Scheduled Caste' means that 

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