PAMPAKAVI RAYAPPA BELAGALI versus B. D. JATTI & OTHERS

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 15-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
PAMPAKAVI RAYAPPA BELAGALI 
v. 
B. D. JATI1 & OTHERS 
October 15, 1970 
[J.C. SHAH, K, S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
611 
Representation of the People A_ct VTEV-Section 100(1) (d)-Election 
petition-Trial of-Whether there is jurisdictiOn o question validity of 
ent~y of name in Electoral Roll-Representation of the People Act 1950 
and ules nzade thert;under-1/ only provsions under which such validity 
may be qufstioned. 
By an election petition two electors of the constituency, the appellants, 
challenged the election of the first respondent to the Mysore Legislative 
Assembly in 1967 from the famkhandi constituency. 
It was alleged 
inter dia that the first respondent had ceased to be a person ordinarily 
resident within the constituency during the period relevant to the 1967 
General Elections, and the validity of the entry of his name on the 
Electoral Roll was questioned; it was claimed that he was not therefore 
qualified to stand for election from the constituency. 
The petition also 
contained allegations of corrupt practices including misuse by certain 
Police Officers of their position to prevent voters from voting freely, and 
mal-practices by the Presiding Officer at the time of polling, etc. 
After framing an issue on the question and taking the view that the 
Court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the inclusion of the 
first respondent's name as an elector .on the Electoral Roll, the trial judge 
held on a consideration of the evidence, that the petitioners had failed 
to prove he first respondent was not an elector and was not qualified to 
•tand for election from the constituency. 
The High Court also rejected 
the allegations of corrupt practices and dismissed the petition. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (i) Under section 30 of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1950, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate 
upon any question whether any person .is or is not entitled fdr registration 
in an Electoral Roll for a constituency. There are elaborate rules which 
have been promulgated for preparation and revision of the Electoral Rolls, 
namely, Electors' Rules 1960. 
The conditions about being ordinarily 
resident in a constituency for the purpose of registration are meant for 
that purpose alone and have nothing lo do with the disqualifications for 
registration which are prescribed by s. 16 of the Act of 1950, which 
alone are relevant to the definition of an "elector" as given in s .. 2(1) (e) 
of the Act of 195 I. The entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and the 
amplitude of its provisions show that the entries made in an Electoral 
Roll of a constituency can only be challenged in accordance with the 
machinery provided by it and not in any other manner or before any 
other forum unless some question of violation of the provisions of the 
Constitution is involved. 
The plresent case did not alsQ' involve any 
violation or infringement of Article 173 or any other provision of the 
Constitution. [615 HJ 
The question whether respondent No. I was ordinarily re·ident in 
Jamkhandi constituency during the material period and was ' ·titled to 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 
be registered in the Electoral Roll could not therefore be the subject 
matter of enquiry except in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 
1950. 
Under s. 100(1) (d) an election can be declared void only if the 
result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has 
been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of 
the Constitution or of the Act of 1951 or of any rules or orders made 
thereunder. 
Nothing could be clearer than the ambit of this provision. 
It does not entitle the court in an election petition to set aside any elec· 
tion on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act 
of 1950 or of any rules made hereunde with the exception of s. 16. 
[617 El 
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raglmrai ·Singh & Others, [1955] 
1 S.C.R. 267; K. Sriramulu v. K. Deriah (1965) 1 Mys. L. J. 676; Roop 
Lal Mehta v. Dilan Singh and Others (1967) P.L.R. 618; referred to. 
On the evidence, no reasons were shown for this court to differ from 
the findings of t.he Trial Judge on the allegations of corrupt practices. 
Meghra; Patodis v. R. K. Bir/a & Others; Civil Appeal No. 1094(~~ 
dated 10-9-1970; referred to. 
· 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2394 of 
1968. 
A 
B 
c 
' 
,. 
D 
., 
Appeal

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