HIRA SINGH PAL versus MADAN LAL

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 15-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

IDRA SINGH PAL 
v. 
MADAN LAL 
January 15, "1968 
[M. ffIDAYATULLAH AND K. S. HEDGE, JJ.] 
Repreurrtatwrr of the People Act. 1951, s.•. 36 and JOO-Clerical mu-
uzJ.e 
in 
nomination pcpers-Duty of Returning Officer-NomituJtion 
,aper• must not be lightly re;ected even in the case of dummy candidate 
~Election to be set a.Ide if papers of such a candidate wrongly rejected. 
The rC5pondent filed two nomination papers for election to the I.egis· 
lative Assembly from a constituency in Himachal Pradesh in the 1967 
general election. Both bis nomination papers were rejected at the scrutiny. 
1l>e first nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the proposer's 
name wa< wrongly mentioned as being at serial No. 380 of Pan 13 of the 
l!lectoral Roll of the constituency whereas it was actually at serial No. 380 
of Pan 23 of the Roll. The oce-0nd nomination paper was rejected on the 
lfound that the respondent was shown ~~ the elector at Serial No. 504 
ot Pan 2 of 9-Arki Assembly constituency but really his name was found 
at serial No. 504 of Pan 12 of that constituency. At the election subse-
quently held the appellant was the winning candidate. The respondent 
filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election on the ground 
that his (the respondent's) nomination papers had been wrongly rejected. 
The High Coun allowed the petition whereupon, by special 
leave, 
the 
appellant came to this Coun. It was ur~d on behalf of the appellant, 
i11trr alia, that the respondent was only a dummy candidate who was not 
e'Ven pr"'5cnt at the time of tl\e scrutiny and had filed the petition only 
hecausc the candidate representing his pany had been defeated. 
HELD : The respondent's nomination papers were wroogly rejected in 
a manner impermissible under s. 36 of the Representation er the People 
Act and the election must be set aside under s. 100 of the Act. [785 A] 
It may be that while scrutinising the first nomination paper the Return-
ing Officer had no material before him II> find out whether the proposer 
of the candidate was really an elector in the constituency or not but in 
the second nomination paper the proposer's name as well as place in the 
electoral roll was correctly mentioned. 
It was improper on the part of 
the Returning Officer to have rcjecled the second nomination paper merely 
on the ground that the pan of the electoral roll in which the respondent'• 
name was recorded was wrongly mentioned because the correct number of 
the electoral rolt was mentioned in the fir~t nomination paper. 
All the 
required information was hcforc the Returning Officer and the mistake 
was onlv clerical. 
Obviously he rejected the nomination paper for the 
reason that the respondent was a dummy candidate but that was not a 
matter for him to decide. [784 D-Hl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1112 of 
1967. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act 
H 
1951 from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1967 of the 
Delhi High Court, Himachal Bench at Simla in .C.O.P. (Election) 
Petition No. 3 of 1967. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HIRA SINGH v. MADAN LAL (Hegde, J.) 
779 
H. R. Gokha/e, S. K. Khanna; S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, 
for the appellant. 
R. K. Garg, Naunit Lal and· B. P. Singh, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J,. 
This appeal is directed against the order of the 
High Court of ·oelhi and Himachal Pradesh in Election Petition 
No. 3 of 1967. That petition 
related to the election to the 
Hirn0chal Pradesh Legislative Assembly during the last General 
Election, from 9-Arki Assembly Constituency. 
The only ground taken in the petition was whether the nomi-
aation of the respondent was improperly rejected. 
The respon-
dent had filed his nomination for the election in question on Janu-
ary 20, 1967. He had filed two nomination papers. The scru-
tiny took place on January 21, 1967. At the time of the scrutiny, 
the respondent was not present; his Pomination papers were rejec-
ted by the Returning Officer. The election took place in Febru-
ary, 1967. The two contesting candidates were the appellant and 
Hari Das the Congress nominee. The appellant succeeded by a 
margin of about 8000 votes. 
After the results of the election 
were announced, the respondent filed an election petition with 
which we are now concerned. 
The only ground taken in the election petition as· mentioned 
earlier was that his nomination papers were impr

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