N. T. VELUSWAMI THEVAR versus G. RAJA NAINAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 24-11-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
623 
ORDER 
The appeal is allowed. The order of the Income Basheshar Nath 
Tax Commissioner, Delhi, dated January 29, 1958, is Th c v ... 
'd 
d 
11 
d" 
d" 
.L' 
• 
I 
e 
o"'"''ss1oner 
set as1 e an a procee mgs now pen mg 1or Imp e-
of Income-tax 
mentation of the order of Union Government dated Delhi & Rajastl:an 
July 5, 1954, a.re quashed. The appellant shall get 
& Another 
costs of this appeal. 
N. T. VELUSW AMI THEVAR 
v. 
G. RAJA NAINAR AND OTHERS 
(T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR 
and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Election Dispute-Rejection of Nomination paper by Returning 
Officer-Validity of rejection raised before Election petition-
] urisdiction of Tribunal to entertain grounds of disqualification not 
raised before Returning Officer-" Improperly rejected", meaning of 
-Representation of the People Act, r95r (43 of r95r), ss. 7, 36(2), 
roo(r)(c), roo(r)(d)(i). 
The nomination paper of the fourth respondent who was 
one of the candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly of 
the State, was rejected by the returning officer on the ground 
that as he was the Headmaster of a Government-aided school he 
was disqualified under s. 7(d) and (e) of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951, to be chosen for election. One of the voters of 
the constituency filed a petition praying that the election of the 
appellant be declared void under s. rno(1)(c) of the Act on the 
ground that the rejection of the nomination paper of the fourth 
respondent was improper because the latter had ceased to be a 
Headmaster at the time of his nomination and that, further, the 
institution was a private one. The appellant, who was the 
second respondent in the petition, contended that the nomination 
paper of the fourth respondent was rightly rejected not only on 
the ground put forward before the returning officer but also for 
the reasons that he was interested in Government contracts and 
that he had agreed to serve as a teacher under the District 
Board. The question was whether in an election petition. chal-
Je11ging the validity of the rejection of a nomination paper under 
s. rno(r)(c) of the Act, it was open to the parties to raise grounds 
Subba Rao ]. 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
z958 
of disqualification other than those put forward before the re· 
turning officer. It was contended for the respondent that the 
Veluswami Thevar proceedings before the Election Tribunal were really by way of 
v. 
appeal against the decision of the returning officer and that, 
Raja :blainar 
therefore, the scope of the enquiry in the election petition must 
be.co-extensive with that before the returning officer and must 
he limited to the grounds taken before him. 
Held, that an election petition is an original proceeding 
instituted by the presentation of a petition under s. Sr of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that the jurisdiction 
which a Tribunal exercises in he.aring an election petition even 
when it raises a question under s. roo(r)(c) of the Act is not in 
the nature of an appeal against the decision of the returning 
officer. 
Held, further, that in considering whether a nomination 
paper was improperly rejected under s. roo(r)(c), the real ques-
tion for decision would be whether the candidate was duly quali-
fied and was not subject to any disqualifications as provided in 
s. 36(2) of the Act. The Tribum,l would, consequently, be com· 
petent to entertain grounds of disqualification other than those 
put forward before the returning officer. 
The expression" improperly rejected" ins. roo(r)(c) of the 
Act, explained. 
Mengh Raj v. Bhimandas, (1952) 2 E. L. R. 301, Tej Singh v. 
Election Trib1mal, J aip11r, (1954) 9 E. L. R.· 193 and Dhanraj 
Deshlchara v. Vishwanath Y. Tamaskar, (1958) 15 E. L. R. 260, 
approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
231 and 232 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated October 21, 1957, of the Madras High 
Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 675 and 676 of 1957. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, S. B. Adityan and G. Gopa/,a. 
krishnan, for the appellant. 
A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for respondent 
No. 1. 
1958. November 24. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Ven/1atarama 
VENKATAHAl\!A AIYAR, J.-These appeals raise a 
Aiya. J. 
question of considerable importance as to the scope of 
an enquiry in an election petition wherein election 
is called in question under s. lOO(l)(c) of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.