KRISHAN BALLABH PRASAD SINGH versus SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER HILSA-CUM-RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 12-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
532 
KRJ;SHAN IW.LABH PRASAD SINGH 
v. 
SUB'-DlVISIONAL OFFICER HILSA-CUM-
RE;TURNING OFFICER AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12,·1985 
'[R.S. ?Al'Hi\K AND SA!lYASACHI MUKHAkJI, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act 1951, Section· 66 
and 
67 
and 
Conduct of J::lections Rules 1%1, Rules 64 & 66, 
Forms 21C, ·210 
' 
. 
and 22 - - Election - Result - IJeclaration in Form ZlC not made -
. 
I 
Cortificate in Form 22 • issued -
Election -
Whether valid -
. c 
Whether writ petition lies - Whether bar enacted in Article 329 
( b) operates against- writ peti tioci. 
I 
. 
The Returning Offiicer after counting of votes announced that 
' 
the petitioner had peen duly elected to Bihar Legislative 
Assembly from Islamput Constitueney and issued a certificate of 
election in Form 22 under Rule 66 of the Conduct of ·Elections 
IJ 
Rules 1961 in 'his fav~ur. However, the declaration in Form 21C 
was not prepared unde~ clause (a)· of Rules 64 and sent to the 
required authorities. 
The 
Returning 
Officer, 
subsequently 
.discovered that the ballot papers of one booth had not been 
counted and after taking into account those votes issued a notice 
cancelling the election of the petitioner. A declaration in Form 
E 
21C was then prepared ~eclaring the fourth respondent elected and 
a fresh ce"tificate in, Form 22 was issued. 
' 
The .petitioner :challenged the e
0lectlon of 
the fourth 
respondent under Artic!le 226 of the Constitution. The High Court 
I 
held that the writ p~tition was not maintainable because of the 
F 
bar imposed by clause
1 (b) of Article 329 and that an election 
petitiori was the proper remedy. 
I 
In sf,ecial Leave'. Petition to this Court it was contended: 
(lJ that the petitioner is entitled lo 
maintai~ the writ 
petition, since the pr.~cess of election was com.>leted as soon as 
G 
the C?unting of votes ~as concluded and ~ certif icaLe of election 
in Form 22 was grantep. certtfying that the petitioner had been 
elected and (2) the Re;turning Officer had no power to cancel the 
election of the 
petit~ioner and declare 
~he fou-rth respondent 
elected. 
if 
K.B.PRASAD v. SUB.DIV.OFFICER 
533 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, 
llELD:l. When Section 66 of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 provides that the result of .the election shall be 
declared .in' ·the manner provided by the Act or the Rules made 
thereunder, the declaration can be effected in the manner 
expressed in Rule 64 of the Rules only either in Form 21C or 210, 
as the case may be. ( 536 B-C] 
In . the instant case, the announcement by the Returning 
Officer that the petitioner had been elected has no legal statWI 
because the declaration in Form 21C had not yet been drawn up. 
Even the grant of the certificate of election in Form 22 cannot . 
avail because Rule 66 contemplates the grant of such certificate 
only after the candidate has been declared elected under section 
66. [536 c-DJ 
2. The Writ Petition cannot be entertained. The process of 
election came to an end after the declaration in Form 21C was 
made and the consequential formalities were completed. The bar of 
clause (b) of Article 329 came into operation thereafter and an 
election petition alone.was maintainable. [536 E-F] 
3. The process of election set forth in the Representation 
of People _Act, 1951 consists of several stages. and towards the 
end it requires a declaration of the result of the election. Sec-
tion 66 of the Act provides that when the counting of votes has 
been completed the Returning Officer must declare forthwith the 
result of the election "in the manner provided in the Act or the 
Ruies made the!'."eunder." Thereafter, under section 67 the result 
of the election is reported by the- Retunling Officer to the 
authorities and ·the declaration is published in the'Official 
Gazette. [535 C-D] 
4. The procedure for declaring the result of the election is 
set forth in Rule 64 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 which 
provides that the declaration envisaged by the law that a 
candidate has been elected is the declaration in Form 21C or Form 
21D. The declaration in Form 21C is made in a. general election 
and the declaration in Form 21D. is made when the election is held 
to fill a casual vacancy. [535 E-H, 536 A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to 
Appeal (Civil) No. 7822 of 1985.· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.1985 of the Patna High 
Court in c.w.J.C, No. 1265 of 1985. 
A 
JI 
c 
D 
F 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
534 
SU

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