JAGANNATH RAMCHANDRA NUNEKAR versus GENU GOVIND KADAM & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1063 · Decided: 14-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAGANNATH RAMCHANDRA NUNEKAR 
v. 
A 
GENU GOVIND KADAM & OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1950/Representation of the 
People Act 1951/Registration of Electors Rules, 1960-Sections 33, 32, 
JOO(l)(c) and 116A/Section 36(7)/Rules 18, 20, 21, 21A and 22-
Nomination Paper rejection of by Returning Officer-Ground that 
certified copy of relevant entry was from electoral roll that was not the 
latest-No prescription requiring certified copy to state dates on which C 
basic roll or supplement had been published. 
The appellant, who was an elector in the Shivaji Nagar Assembly 
Constituency in Pune, intended to contest the bye-election to fill a seat 
in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Jaoli Assembly Con-
D 
_stituency in Satara district. He applied to the Electoral Registration 
Officer of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency for a certified copy 
of the relevant entry in the electoral roll containing his name, specifi· 
cally mentioning that he required it for the purpose of producing it 
before the Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency under section 33(5) of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to enable him to file his 
E 
nomination paper. 
In the Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency a basic roll of electors 
had been prepared prior to 31.I.1984. The name of the _appellant was 
. • 
entered at SI. No. 16 of a supplement which was published on 
31.l.1984. Two more supplements were issued subsequently. The basic F 
roll and the supplements together constituted one integrated electoral 
roll which was published again on 29.1.1985. The certified copy, which 
was furnished to the appelfant on 8.l.1986, i.e., one day before the date 
on which he filed his nomination paper, was a copy made from the said 
integrated roll. 
The Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency noted that ill the 
certified copy produced the latest date of publication was given 
G 
as 31.1.1984. The Returning Officer told the appellant that since there 
were revisions subsequent to 31. 1.1984, he had to produce another 
certified copy of the latest electoral roll at the time of secrutiny i.e. 11 
O'Clock on ll .J .1986. The appellant rushed back to Pune and obtained 
H 
1063 
A 
B 
c 
D 
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
another certified copy showing the latest date of publication 
as 29.1.1985, but reached the office of the Returning Officer of Jaoli 
constituency at about l P.M. on 11.1.1986. In the meantime, the 
Returning Officer had already passed an order rejecting the nomination 
paper of the appellant on the ground of non-compliance with the pro-
visions of sub-section (5) of section 33 and sub-section (7) of section 36 of 
the 1951 Act. The appellant requested review of the order but the 
Returning Officer declined stating that he had no power of review. 
The High Court dismissed the appellant's election petition hold-
ing: (I) that the appellant had not complied with section 33(5) of the 
1951 Act as the certified copy produced by him was not a certified copy 
of the electoral roll in force at the time of election; (2) the certified copy 
produced on 11.1.1986 had been produced after the order of rejection 
of the appellant's nomination paper had been passed, and (3) the 
Returning Officer had no power to review. 
Allowing the appeal it was, 
HELD: (I) There is no prescription requiring the certified copy 
to state the several dates on which the basic roll or the supplement from 
which the copy is prepared had been published. [1076F] 
(2) The Returning Officer had acted on his own information in 
E 
rejecting the nomination paper of the appellant, namely, that there was 
a revision in 1985 and that the certified copy which had been produced 
was from an electoral roll which had become defunct If that was so, he 
should have secured the necessary material from the concerned 
Electoral Registration Officer and placed it before the appellant before 
rejecting his nomination paper. [10770-E] 
F 
(3) Unless the certified copy produced before the Returning 
Officer itself on the face of it showed that the electoral roll from which a 
certified copy had been prepared had been substituted by another 
electoral roll, the Returning Officer was not justified in not treating the 
production of the certified copy prepared on 8.1.1986 as sufficient com-
G 
pliance under section 33(5) of the 1951 Act, particularly having regard 
to the close prox

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