POTHULA RAMA RAO versus PENDYALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 02-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A 
POTHULA RAMA RAO 
y 
v. 
-
PENDY ALA VENKA TA KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. 
i-
~ 
AUGUST 2, 2007 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.RV. RA VEENDRAN AND 
DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-ss. 33(1), 36(2), 38, 83, 
-L~ 
c lOO(J)(c), lOO(l)(d)(i) and lOO(l)(d)(iv)-Election petition-For 
declaration of election of returned candidate as void-Applications by 
returned candidc:te for striking off the pleadings and rejection of the petition-
High Court struck off the pleadings and dismissed the petition as not disclosing 
any cause of action-On appeal, held: Pleadings rightly struck off and 
petition rightly rejected-Pleadings did not disclose any cause of action to 
D proceed with the matter-Representation of the People Act, 1950-ss. 16 and 
18--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0.6 r. 16 and 0. 7 r. 11 (ci)-Election 
Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968-Para 13 
-+ 
Words and Phrases: 
E 
'Elector' and 'recognized political party '-Meaning of in the context 
of Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
Appellant (a voter of the constituency) filed an election petition for 
declaring the election of first respondent (returned candidate) to the 
F 
Legislative Assembly as void. The declaration was sought on four grounds 
viz. (1) the nomination of a candidate 'P' was wrongly rejected as a dummy 
--
candidate; (2) the Returning Officer should have rejected the nomination of 
first respondent as his name was entered twice in the General Ele~toral Roll, 
f 
(3) the nomination of a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party ought to have been 
rejected as his nomination was not subscribed by ten proposers as the Party 
G was not a recognized political party in that State, and (4) the names of the 
candidates were not shown in alphabetical form in the list of contesting 
candidates published under s. 38 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951. 
The first respondent contested the election petition and filed two 
~~ 
H 
982 
POTHULA RAMA RAO v. PENDYALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO 
983 
-< 
applications. One for striking off Paras 8tot1 of the election petition and A 
the other for rejection of election petition. High Court allowed both the 
applications of the first respondent. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court had rightly struck off the pleadings contained in B 
paras 8 and 9 of the election petition. The High Court was also right in 
holding that paras 10 and 11 did not disclose any cause of action to proceed 
with the matter. The order allowing the applications and rejecting the election 
,_'t 
petition, does not suffer from any infirmity or error. (Para 10) (992-G) 
Dhartipakar Madan/al Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR (1987) SC 1577 c 
and Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233, relied on. 
2. The term 'dummy candidate' and 'official candidate' are well 
recognized in election law. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 
of Representation of the People Act, 1951, makes it clear that a candidate not D 
set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated 
unless his nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers who are electors 
~ 
of the constituency. The use of the word 'set up' by a recognized party in the 
said proviso shows that a positive act was required on the part of the political 
party with reference to the candidate. The Election Symbols (Reservation & 
Allotment) Order, 1968 explains when a candidate shall be deemed to be set E 
up by a recognized political party. A candidate who is a member of the political 
party, and who is issued Form B by the political party, is thus the official 
candidate of the political party. On the other hand, a candidate who belongs 
to a recognized political party, but who is not issued a 8-Form, is referred to 
as the dummy candidate of such political party. The nomination of an official 
F 
candidate set up by a recognized political party (by securing 8-Form) is 
\ 
required to be subscribed by one elector as a proposer. But a candidate who is 
not set up by.a recognized political party, requires ten proposers for making 
his nomination to be valid. (Para 5] (988-D-F; 989-A-C) 
Krishna Mohini v. Mohinder Nath So/at, AIR (2000) SC 317, relied on G 
3. If an election petitioner wants to put forth a plea that a nomination 
was improperly rejected, as a ground for declaring an election to be void, it is 
~ x 
necessary to set out the averments necessary for making out
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.