P.T RAJAN versus T.P.M. SAHIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 26-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.T. ·RAJAN . 
" 
•.. v. 
';' 
<.,I• 
T.P.M.· SAHIR AND ·ORS . 
.I 
. ,.J,. r~ 1 • 11 • 
• r 
.·~. t f 
' 
f ' 
1 ~ 
. SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 . ,. , 
,, 
j 
1 ':.' 
. 
B 
~t 
1 rt• 
. -••tJ 
,ll .i· 
'Jf-.1 ·1 • 
' 
r 
~ 
• I 
[V.N:.~HARE, q., ~.~UJES,1-LJ~YM,1.R.A~D.~.f3. SU'{HA, J!.J, , ; 
' 
'l • _, 
. 
• I • . . " . ' 
l 
-i~. '. 
• 
""
4 
I i 
: J 
Representation of the People Act, 1950; Ss. 2(b), 21, 22 and 23(3)1 .. 
• 
• 
• I 
1" '1 . ' ( L 
• 
j • - • • . 
~ 
1 I 
1 
' l 
' 
• 
• 
-
Representation of the People Act,1951; Ss. 2(d) and (e}, 62, 98 and JOO/ 
'" 
~·I 
-
···~ 
"'",(It __ :< 
tf~ 
1 '·••1· 
I 
I 
" 
-• 
• 
Electors Rules, 1960; Rules::>, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 26: 
l' , 
c, 
· 
. ~l~ct!ot~.Petitio,~-;-F;(~f,tO,~al r<?,{1.-;R.,ev/siqn~Additioi:i and d~lefjqn of 
name of electors after the prescribed time limit-Effect of-Held: Electoral 
roll enables the persons e~lis'ted therein to exercise th~ir right of franchis~' 
and its absence in the list.disabled them to exercise such rights-Section· 
23(3) of the 1950 Act prohibits the authorities to revtse the roll by way 
D of amendment after expiry ~f the time li;nit pr~scribed therefor~However,. 
.j' I t 
,._ 
. ' 
• 
~ 
• 
F 
• 
election petitioner has ne{tfier1 adduc;cf any evidence to show that ho.w; 1 
many voters were deleted/rpm the electoral roll afte_r, the prescribec{,time;, 
limit nor did he prove tha,t these voters would have voted in his favour in.1 
case their names were not deleted therefi"om and vice versa-He has also , 
E failed to set out material f~cts 'Jecpsary to make out a prim a facie cas~ ''. 
for inspection of Ballot Papers to ascertain the number of void votes-, , 
• 
• 
E 
• 
~ ' 
• 
I 
Hence, petition is dismissf!d,on merit-,C<{nstitut!on of Jndif!, 1950; Article,~ 
326-Registration of Electors Rules, 1982 .. 
• 
, 
• 
•· 
• 
I 
F 
Statute-Nature of-Ma~datory 'or directo~Di;cu~sed. 
j' ',. 
1 
Appellant was the election agent of the second respondent for 
I 
1• 
I 
Kozhikode Constituency General Assembly Election, 2001. Respondent 
No. 1, returned candidate secured 48,858 votes as against 48,099 votes 
secured by respondent No. 2, the defeated candidate. An Election 
G Petition was filed by the election agent of respondent no. 2 challenging1 
the election of Respondent No. 1 on the ground that electoral roll was 
revised by making amendment in the -roll by adding 6,828 votes and 
deieting 19,045 votes, after the prescribed time limit and after acceptance 
of nominations for the election. Election Tribunal/High Court dismissed 
H the petition. Hence the present appeal. 
. 84 
. 
~( 
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR 
85 
• 
A 
' 
, 
It was contended for the appellant that as the provisions contained 
in sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act are mandatory in 
nature, the violation thereof rendered· the election void; that the 
election held pursuant to or in furtherance of the electoral roll 
prepared and published after the prescribed time limit must be hefd 
to be wholly illegal rendering the election void ab initio; that the High B 
Court failed to take into consideration that the electoral roll could not 
have been published after the prescribed time limit therefor; and that 
,/ 
in view of the evidence of the witnesses, the entire election proceeding 
was illegal and, thus the election in its entirety should have been set 
aside. 
c\ 
Respondent No. I submitted that it was incumbent upon the 
appellant to plead and prove that after the prescribed time limit, names 
of how many persons were added or names of how many persons were 
deleted from the electoral roll; that it has not and could not have been 
the case of tlie' ~ppellant that names of 7,003 voters were added and 
names of 18,839 voters were deleted after the prescribed time limit; D 
that in law it is not necessary to make publication of the electoral roll 
in terms of sub-section 23 of the 1950 Act by 3 p.m. of the date fixed 
for filing nomination inasmuch as the said provision contemplates 
mere issuance of directions by the specified authorities; that while E 
issuing such directions, the statutory authorities are required to assign 
reasons, as the said order would be appealable one; and that having 
regard to the provision of Section I 00(1 )( d) of the I 951 Act even if 
irregular electoral roll was prepared, it was necessary to plead and 
prove that by reason thereof, the result of the election had been 
I ~ 
materially affected. 
F 
Dismissing the 

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