MATHURA PRASAD versus AJEEM KHAN

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 17-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MATHURA PRASAD 
A 
v. 
AJEEM KHAN 
APRIL 17, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
B 
Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 33(4), 36(4), 88 and 
1 
,,. 
116-A-Returning Officer-Finding out of identity of candidate--
Order rejecting nomination papers of a candidate--Validity of-Held 
Ii 
no statutory duty cast on Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry. 
~ 
Election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya c 
Pradesh was held in February, 1985. For Constituency No. 14 Lahar 
,..,r 
(Distt. Bhind) nomination papers were filed l;iefore 6th February, 1985 
and scrutiny done on February 7, 1985. During the scrutiny the noini-
nation paper of Ramprakash who was one of the candidates was 
rejected by the Returning Officer. The order rejecting the paper reads 
D 
as under: 
"Candidate is not identified as per electoral roll. His rep-
resentative has accepted this mistake also .. Hence rejected. 
Advised for correction but did not correct. The candidate 
~-
did not correct after advising to correct mistake. Even did 
E 
not appear at the time ,of.scrutiny to correct mistake. Hence 
rejected. See Section 33(4) R.P.A." 
Result of the election was declared on' 5th March, 1985 and the 
appellant declared elected. 
-,.-
F 
The. election of the appellant was challenged by the Respondent 
~ wno was one of the voters of the constituency through an election peti-
lion on several grounds-the main ground being the wrongful rejection 
of the nomination paper of Ramprakash. On the pleadings of the parties 
the High Court framed issue No. I which reads as under: 
G 
(i) Whether rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash by 
the Returning bmcer was illegal, as alleged? 
The High Court on an analysis of the evidence came to the conclu-
sion that the entire story advanced by the election petitioner and his 
witnesses was a fabrication and deserved to be rejected outright. How-
H 
A 
B 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
ever after recording this fmding the learned single judge of the High 
Court went on to hold that the candidate's absence was immaterial and 
the Returning Officer could have himself found out the electoral 
number of the candidate Ramprakash readily with a little effort without 
the assistance of any of the persons mentioned in Section 36( I) of the 
_Act and that the defect in the nomination paper cannot be held to be of a 
substantial character. Issue No. I was thus decided in favour of the 
election petitioner as a result of which the election petition was allowed 
and the election of the appellant declared void. Hence this appeal by the 
elected candidate. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment 
of the High Court, this Court, 
C 
HELD: There is no statutory duty cast on the Returning Officer to 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
himself 1001!. through the entire electoral roll of a particular part with a 
view to finding out the correct identity of a candidate at the time of the 
scrutiny even though neither the candidate himself nor any other re-
presentative on his behalf was present to cure the defect. (5168-D] 
A perusal of the circumstances put forward by the witnesses at the 
time of scrutiny and rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash 
shows that Ramprakash himself was not present and even his proposer 
Jaiprakash after having gone to fetch Ramprakash did not return back 
and ultimately the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of 
Ramprakash. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the 
nomination paper of Ramprakash clearly makes a mention that the 
candidate was not identified as per electoral roll. His representative had 
accepted the mistake also and was advised for correction but did not 
correct the same. The candidate did not correct after advising to correct 
the mistake. It further makes a mention that the candidate even did not 
appear at the time of scrntiny to correct the mistake. _In the cir-
cumstances mentioned above we have no hesitation at all in holding that 
the Returning Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting the nomination 
paper of Ramprakash. [509A-C] 
It depends on the facts and_ circumstances of each case to find as 
to what mistake in a nomination paper can be considered a mistake of 
substantial nature. It is correct that the Returning Officer should not 
reject a nomination paper merely on a mistake of technical or formal 
nature, where the identity of the candidate can be ascertained by him 
on the material made ava

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