PARMAR HIMATSINGH JUGATSINGH versus PATEL HARMANBHAI NARSIBHAI

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 22-02-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
" 
PARMAR HIMAlllNGH JUGATSD'IGH 
~. 
PATEL Jb\RMA)IBHAI NAll.SIBHM 
February ii. 1974. 
453 
[P, )If, BltAGWA'U''.tND ],';· K: ~AllU, JJ;] 
Revm<11t•lion <Jf. lhe P'ople Act, 1951-s .. 33(5) ~1id 36(4)..,..ScoPe v/. 
Tho appellallt challenged the electl.\Ofl of the -resPondot)I: t~ tbe Stole J\.ssem· 
bly. 
He_ alleged ;that at the. tiip.o .. of. ttie. s~rut_inv of nom1nat100. P8L?~I'$ th_e 
retitrnin"a. otfi~r _improperly re~ct¢ _the ~om1~ation, pape_r ... of Oll;e of the tand1-
dates-: for the'· election. The name of the r_e1ected can41date _was found, not 
on the electoral 'ri>Us of the constituency in which he hat! filed hiS non1ill3.tirin 
l)Opers, but ·on· the· rolls ·or- anotPer: constituency .. Since his _name was •not 
corrtct1y printed-on the el(:ctoral rolls;·_. he_ had obtained :a co~gend,um to_.the 
electoral roll, a certified copy Of whic_h was . enclose.d with the nomin,ation P~~r. 
Objection having been raised b:Y the respondent, his nomina.tion P~.r . Was 
rejected on the ground that the provisions of s. 33(5) of the Repre'Sentation 
of People Act were not complied with inasmuch as he had not produced the 
certified conv of all the relevant entries in the electoral roll at the time of 
scrutiny of ihe nomination papers. 
Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act providCS 'that where 
the candidate is an elector to a different constituency ·a copy of the electoral 
roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof ·Or a certified copy 
of the relevant entries of such roll shall, unless it has been filed .alon.'t with 
the nomination paper, be produced before the returning officer at the time of 
!itnitiny; 
The High Court dismissed the election petition of the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: Non-compliance withs. 33(5) is a defect of a_sU~tantial c_haractcr 
aua is not covered by s. 36(4) of the Act. The Returning Officer rightly 
rejected the nomination paper and rejection cannot be held . to be impiope-r. 
Evidently the rejected candidate is an elector be a different constituency. Tb.a1 
being the position he could have complied witft .. s .. 33-(S) by follo~ing one .or 
the other of the three modes provided in· that sub~sectlon namely : ( 1) he could 
have produced a copy of the electoral roll of constituency in which his name 
ao_oeared, or (2) he could have produced a copy of the relevant part · of the 
electoral roll of that constituency in which his name appears or ( 3) he could 
have prodUced a certified copy of the relevant: . entries in the electoral ·rotl 
Qf that constituency. He however selected the third mode by. enclosing a 
certified copy of the corrigendum to the electoral roll. [457 O.:-F; 459 C-D] 
It is clear that the· corrigendum did not furnish all the· particulars which. 
would be available if a certified copy of the relevant .entries in the original 
electoral roll as well as the corrigendum were produced before the Returning 
Ofticer at the time of scrutiny. Since the original electoral roll may be 
corrected and amended it was. absolutely necessary for the satisfaction Of the 
Returning Officer that a certified copv of not only the original .electoral roli 
containin.: the relevant entry as also a certified copy of the amendment list 
conccrnin2 the candidate were produced at the time of scrutiny if this had 
not already been filed along with the nomination paper. [457 F-G] 
Sr; Baru Rani v. ~!Vin1atl Prasanni & Others, [1959] S.C.R. 1403/14, 1421 
and Narbada Prasad v. Cli/UJga1i I.al mid Ors. [1659] I S.C.R. 499/502, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1973. 
Appeal from the Judgment and order of the Gujar~t High Court 
in Election Petition No. 7 of 1972. 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1974 l 3 S.C.R. 
K. RajenJra Cltaudlturi and P. C. Kapur, for the appellant. 
V. B. Patel and H. s. Parihar, for the respondent, 
The Judgment of the Court was deliverec! by 
GoswAMI, J. This appeal under.section U6-A of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the Act) is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing• the election petition 
of the appellant who is an elector from Mahudha constituency for 
the Guja;at State Legislative Assembly. The . appellant 
challenged 
the election of the respondent who had been <leclared duly elected 
to the State Legislative Assembly from this particular constituency 
in the general elections to the Legislative Assembly held in

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