KONAPPA RUDRAPPA NADGOUDA versus VISHWANATH REDDY & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 13-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KONAPPA RUDRAPPA NADGOUDA 
v. 
VISHWANATH REDDY & ANR. 
September 13, 1968 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH,. C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act ( 43 of 1951), ss. 53, 84 and 101-
Two candidates contesting for one seat-Court finds successful candidate 
to be .under statutory disquo!ification-Whether the other can be declared 
elected. 
The appellant and respondent were the contesting candidates for a 
'cat in the State Legislative Assembly. The appellant challenged the 
respondent's nomination before the Returning Officer on the ground that 
the respondent was disqualified under s. 9A of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951. No general notice was given to the electorate about 
the disqualification. 
The Returning Officer overruled the objection and 
accepted the respondent's nomination. After the respondent was elect-
ed, the appellant filed an election petition in the High Court, on the 
same ground, but the petition was rejected. 
In appeal, this Court declared the election of the respondent void, 
and on the question whether the appellant could, under law, be declared 
elected, 
HELD : The decision in Keshav 
Laxman 
Borkar v. Dr. Devrao 
T..axman Anande, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 902 that votes cast in favour of the 
disqualified candidate would be deemed to be thrown away only when the 
voters had notice of the disqualification, ·and that in the absence of such 
notice, there can only be fresh· election is wrong. That rule was adopted 
from English decisions but it is not consistent with the Indian statute 
law and is inappropriate for Indian conditions. [95 A-B; 96 E] 
(a) Section 53 of the Act renders a poll necessary only if there ·are 
more candidates contesting the election than the number of seats con-
tested. If the number of candidates is equal to the number of seats to 
be filled, the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare all suqh candidates 
to be dully elected to fill those seats. [92 DJ 
(b) In cases falling under s. !Ol(b), the Act requires merely proof 
of· corrupt practice and obtaining votes by the corrupt 
practice : 
it 
does not require proof that voters had notice of the corrupt practice. 
Therefore, in cases falling under cl. (a) when there are only two candi-
dates for one seat and the returned candidate is found to be under a 
statutory disqualification the other may be declared elected under s. 84 
read withs. IOl(a), even though the voters had no notice of the disquali-
fication of the successful candidate. [96 B-E] 
(c) It would be almost impassible to give notice of the disqualifica-
tion to the electorate in view of the immense cost involved and the general 
illiteracy of a large section of voters. [95 E-F] 
( d) There is no logic in the assumption that votes, cast in favour of 
a person whose nomination was accepted by the Returning Officer but 
who was really disqualified, could still be treated as valid votes for deter-
•
A 
B 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
. 
·.~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
• 
G 
H 
KONAPPA V, V!SHWANATH (Shah,. J,) 
9! 
mining whether a fresh election should be held. 
While notice to voters 
may have significance when there are more than two candidates in the 
field for a single seat, where there are only two contesting candidates and 
one of them is under a statutory disqualification, votes cast in his favour 
may he regarded as thrown away irrespective of whether the voters were 
aware of the disqualification. [95 F-H] 
Therefore, where by an erroneous order of the Returning Officer poll 
is held which, but for that order, was not necessary, the Court would 
be justified in declaring the contesting candidate elected, who, but for 
the order of the Returning Officer would have been declared elected. 
f95 C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 54 of 
1968. 
(For the review of this Court's judgment dated July 19, 
1968 in Civil Appeal No. 1705 of 1967). 
B. S. Patil, M. K. Ramamurthi, Vineet Kumar and Shyamala 
Pappu, for the petitioner. 
S. V. Gupte, S. S. Java/i aind B. Datta, for respandent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. Vishwanath Reddy was declared elected to the 
Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yadgiri constituency at 
the poll held in February 1967. Nadgouda who was a contesting 
candidate filed a petition before the High Court of Mysore for an 
order setting aside the election of Reddy on the 
ground that 
Reddy was disqualified from standing as a candidate for ele

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