LexKRIPA SHANKAR CHATTERJI versus GURUDAS CHATTERJEE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
KRIPA SHANKAR CHATIERJI
v.
GURUDAS CHATIERJEE AND ORS.
JULY 12, 1995 ·
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
Election Law:
Representation of People Act, 1951:
Election to Assembly ConstituencyElection petition by defeated can-
didate-Findings off act-Disinclination to inteifere where it is established by
cogent, convincing and unimpeachable evidence that the finding is unjustified
and against weight of evidence-Reiterat{!d.
The appellant was the returned candidate from Nirsa Assembly
Constituency. He had lost by a margin of 1450 votes to Respondent no. 1
and filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent no. 1
on the g~ounds that (i) improper rejection of the nomination paper of one
of the candidates viz. 'C' although be was above 25 years of age, (2)
improper acceptance of nomination papers of two candidates who were not
voters in that constituency. (3) the returned candidates and two other
candidates namely Respondents No. 20 and 21 were at the time of election,
employees of Eastern Coal Field Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.
which was a Government of India Undertaking and as such were public
serva_nts under Section 21 of Indian Penal Code and were accordingly
disqualified to contest the said election and (4) the election of the returned
candidate was invalid on account of irregularities in counting ballot
papers.
G
Respondent No. 1 contested the Election Petition and denied the
contentions. The Single judge of the High Court dismissed the election
petition by rejecting all the contentions of the election petitioner. On the
question of improper rejection of the nomination paper of 'C' it was found
that there was no evidence that he was not less than 25 years age at the
H time of scrutiny.
28
fM
1
-
·r
~ .
KS. CHATIERJI v. G. CHATIERJEE
29
Aggrieved against the High Court judgment, the election petitioner A
preferred the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. It was open to the election petitioner to move the court B
for taking appropriate steps to ensure appearance of 'C', one of the
candidates. The ex-pane affidavit without affording opportunity to the
Respondent No. 1 to test the veracity of the statements made in the
affidavit by cross examining him cannot be held to be sufficient proof of
the correct age of 'C'. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the finding
of the High Court on the question of rejection of nomination paper of 'C'. C
[31-GJ
2.1. Although an appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the High
Court in an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act
and although in such appeal this Court can interfere with the finding of
fact by making its own assessment of evidence, as a rule of prudence, this
Court has always shown disinclination to interfere with the finding of fact
unless it can be established by cogent, convincing and unimpeachable
evidence that the finding of fact by the High Court is unjustified and
against the weight of the evidence. [32-G]
2.2. In the instant case, the High Court has rightly come to the
finding by indicating reasons that the election petitioner has failed to
establish by any convincing evidence that in view of contest of the election
D
E
by the two candidates who were allegedly not the voters from that con·
stituency, the polling prospect of the election petitioner was materially F
affected. [32-F)
N.I. Singh v. L.O. Singh, (1977) 1 SCR 573 and Mohd. Yunus v. Shiv
Kumar, (1974) 3 SCR 738, referred to.
3. The question as to whether an employee of Eastern Coal Fields G
Ltd. was holding an "office of profit" so as to be disqualified to contest
election under the Representation of People Act need not be gone into, in
view of the finding that the Respondent No. 1 had in fact resigned from
his service at the relevant period and his resignation was accepted by the
concerned authority. (33-C]
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2503 of
f,..
A
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.94 of the Patna High Court
in Election Petition No. 3 of 1990.
-·'
B
Gobinda Mukhoty, V.J. Farancis and Y Subramanian for the Appel-
lant.
'r
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
G.N. RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
February 3, 1994 passed by Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in Election
Petition No. 3 of 1990. The appellant challeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.