KUMARANAND versus BRIJ MOHAN LAL

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 24-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KUMARANAND 
v. 
BRIJ MOHAN LAL 
August 24, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., J. C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR JJ.J 
Repusentation of the People Act. 195 I ( 43 of l 95 I). s. 119-A-El«-
tion Petition-Appeal-Securiry deposit-Deposit with Registrar's Of/W of 
the High COKrt Instead of Governmenl Treasury-Wherher appeal to be 
dismissed. 
On a petition by lhe reswndent. challenging the election of the appel-
lant to the State Legislative Assembly, the Election Tribunal declared the 
election void under s. 100( I )(b) of the Representation of the People Act. 
Against lhe order of the Tribunal, the appellant appealed to the High 
Court. 
Instead of enclosing with the memorandum of appeal a Govllm-
ment Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of Rs. 500 bad been made 
in favour of the Election C<immission, the appellant through his Advocale 
tendered the amount in the office of the Registrar ·of the High Court. 
The amount tendered was accepted and was duly credited in the name 
of the appellant as "security deposit" .. At the hearing of the appeal if 
was contended by the respondent, inter a/ia, that the appellant had failed 
to enclose with the memorandum of appeal a Government Treuury 
Receipt showing that a deposit of five hundred rupeC3 had been made 
by him in favour of the Election Commission as security of the com of 
the appeal, and bis appeal was, on that account, not maintainable. 1be 
High Court held that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions 
of 1. 119-A of the Act and on that account the appeal filed by him was 
inrompetent, and dismissed the appeal. In appoal by special leave : 
HELD : The failure to comply with the requirements of s. 119-A docs 
not necessarily result in the dismissal of the appeal, for the Act impooes 
no express penalty for non-compliance with the requirements of that 
section. The Court had therefore jurisdiction having regard to the circum-
ltallCCS, either to permit rectification of the mistake. or to decline to 
proceed with the appeal which did not comply with the statutory require-
ments. Jn the present case the High Court erred in not taking into consi-
deration the conduct of the office of the Regist'ar in accepting the deposit 
of costs and also a defecth·e presentation of the appeal whieb contributed 
to the irregularity of the procedure adopted by the appellant. [ 1228-D]. 
lagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, (1954] S.C.R. 892, referred to. 
CivlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 644 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dat.cd 
FebrullI)' 25, t 964, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Election 
Appeal No. 93 of 1963. 
R. K. Garg, for the appellant. 
B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. 1. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' > 
KUMARANAND v. BRIJ MOHAN (Shah J.) 
117 
A 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
·Sbah J. 
At the last general elections held in February 
1962 the appellant Kumaranand contested a seat in the Rajasthan 
Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency and was 
declared elected. 
Brij Mohan Lal who was a candidate at the 
B election then presented a petition challenging .the election of the 
appellant on the ground that the appellant l)ad in the course of 
the election committed corrupt practices within the meaning of 
s. 123 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by 
publishing a poem containing false statements of fact relating to 
the personal character and conduct of the applicant Brij Mohan Lal 
c and which were highly prejudicial to his election prospects. The 
Election Tribunal declared the appellant's election void under 
s. 100 (1 )(b) of the Act. Against the order of the Tribunal, the 
appellant appealed to the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. 
At the hearing of the appeal it was contended by the respondent 
Brij Mohal Lal, lnter alia, that the appellant had failed to enclose 
D with the memorandum, of appeal a Government Treasury receipt 
showing that a deposit of five hundred rupees had been made by 
him in favour of the Election Commission. as security for the costs 
of the appeal, and his appeal ·was, on that account, not maintain-
able. The High Court held that the appellant had failed to comply 
with the provisions of s. 119A of the Act and on that account 
E 
the appeal filed by him was incompetent. The High Court declined 
to accede to the request made by the appellant to condone the 
delay, if any, in the filing of the appeal under the proviso to 
s. l l 6A(3) and to rect

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