JAIDRATH SINGH AND ANR. versus JIVENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 15-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAIDRATH SINGH AND A"IR. 
v. 
JIVENDRA KCMAR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 15, 200~ 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. Rt.:MA PAL, JJ.j 
ELECTION LAWS: 
U.P. Zila Pwishads (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and 
C Settlement of Election Di:>putes) 
Rulej, 1963 Schedule II-Election of 
Adhyaksha/President-None of the candidates :>ecuring the required 'quota' 
of votes for being declared elected-Election by drawing of lots-Held, draw-
ing of lots invalid--Hence declaration by High Court that office of Adhyaksha 
was vacant justified. 
D 
J, M and G were candidates for election to the post of Adhyak· 
sha/President of a Zila Parishad. There were 31 electors, all of whom voted. 
The first preference votes for the candidates were 10, 14 and 7 respectively. 
Quota for securing a result was 16 a~ per the provisions of Schedule II to 
U.P. Zila Parishads (Election of Adhyabha and Up-Adhyaksha an Settle· 
E ment of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963. None of thie candidates secured 
the desired quota. G, who secured the least number of votes, was 
eliminated and second preference votes were scrutinised. The second 
preference votes for J and M were 5 and l respectively. After including the 
second preference votes, J and M got 15 votes each and both of them failed 
to secure the desired quota of 16 votes. Returning Ollicer decided to draw 
F lots and J was declared elected. M filed an election petition where he 
succeeded. On an appeal by J, High Court declared that the office of the 
Adhyabha was vacant since both J and M did not obtain the desired quota 
of 16 votes as per the Rules. 
G 
Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Where there are only two candidates, the quota plays no 
part. Paragraph (4) of Schedule II to U.P. Zila parishads (Election of 
H Adhy'lksha and t:p-Adhyaksha and Settlement .of Disputes) Rules, 1963 
• . 
800 
-.::-
JAIDRATII SINGH v. JIVF"IDRA KUMAR 
801 
states that the candidate who secures more first preference votes than the A 
other shall be declared elected, and where both get an equal number of 
first preference votes, lots shall be drawn. In that event, successive counts 
shall be held until either a candidate secures the quota or only one 
candidate remains. There is no provision in Schedule II to the Rules to 
meet a situation where there are three candidates and all of them do not 
B 
get the desired quota. Paragraph (6) of the Schedule cannot be applied for 
the simple reason that under the provisions of that paragraph only a 
candidate who has secured the quota can be declared elected. Even if, on 
the second count, J was to be excluded by reason of the fact that he had 
secured 10 first preference votes as against M's 14 first preference votes, 
M could not be declared elected because he had not secured the quota of C 
16 votes. The High Court was right in holding that :'rt could not be declared 
elected. [805-G-H; 806-A-C; 807-G-H; 808-A-B] 
1.2. The provision in paragraph (4) of the Schedule for drawing of 
lots OJ?erates only when both candidates get an equal number of first D 
preference votes. The provision in paragraph (6) for the drawing of lots is 
applicable only to determine which out of two or more candidates who have 
secured the same number of votes at a count subsequent to the first count 
shall be eliminated; if these candidates happen to have secured the same 
number of first preference votes it shall be decided by lots. The instruc-
tions to the Returning Ofiicer in the Schedule are detailed and he is 
obliged by Rule 26 to follow then. They tell him when he may resort to the 
drawing of lots but the contingency of the two continuing candidates have 
E 
the same number, counting both first and second preference votes, is not 
covered thereby. No resort to the drawing uf lut~ cuuld have been made in 
the absence of an instruction in that behalf in the Schedule. The Returning 
Ofticer w-.is not entitled to draw lots between J and M. The High Court was 
right in holding that the election of J by the draw of lots was invalid. 
Accordingly, the declaration of the High Court that there was a vacancy in 
the office of the Adhyaksha was justified. [808-B-FJ 
University of Poona & Ors. v. Sankar Narhar Ageshe & Ors., (1971] 
Supp. SCR 597, relied on. 
Nanak Chand v. Vachaspati &Anr,, (1968) 66 Allahabad Law Journal 
F 
G 
29; Jagat Singh v. Dharum Pal Singh, (1984) 82 Allahabad Law Journal 859; 
Genda Singh v. Distt. Judge, Aligarh & Ors., (1985) 83 Allahabad La
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.