LexPRAHLADDAS KHANDELWAL versus NARENDRA KUMAR SALVE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PRAHLADDAS KHANDELWAL v. NARENDRA KUMAR SALVE Sepumber 11, 1972 157 [A. N. GROVER, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MuKHERJEA, JJ.] B Tile Represe111ation of the People Act (43 of 1951), .;s. 33 and 36- E'J1..c·tion to Lok Sahlza-Parlia111entary Constituency uot 111rntioned in nomination Forn1--For111 in Hindi-Apparent confusion, but 1ncani11g ;·/ear-Defect in filling pointc:I 0111. hut not rcctified-Rejcction Cl/ 11on1i- 11ntion paper-Jj corrccr. n~ appellant filed his non1ination paper for t::l~ction to the Loi... Sahf::i: but did not mention the Parliw:t\entary O:mstitucncy from v.'hich he C ,.,..as .:ontesting. The rlomination form was in Hindi. Even though, tht.'.' A!'.,.istant Returning Officer dre\\' his attention to the omission, the appel- Jant aid. not cure the dcfl.!ct. The Reluming Officer. at the time of scru· iiny, hclJ that the defect was of a substantial character and rejected th~ nomination paper. In the appellant's election petition, the High Cqurt hcJ<.! rh;1t the Returning Officer \\·as justified in rejecting the n0min~ti0n r:t~L•r. D E F 6 H Disn1issin.c the appeal to this Court. HELD : ( I l Fonn on which the nomination of the appeUant wa.> made was the one which had been statutorily prcscrilx:d. It was not rniP.leadi.n-g or defective and in the present erase, thC;c was an omis'iion ro mention the name of the For!i:unentarv Constituency for which the appellant was being nominated as a candidate. [162F-GJ L"mler the conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Fonn means a form mL:...ns a form appendeU to the Rules c.nd include$ a translation thereof in :~ny -of the hinguag:es usct.l for the official purposes o·f the State. Accord- ir1g 11..1 _:.. 5 ( 1) of the Official Languages Act. J 96.3 a translation in Hindi ;our!i>hcu under the authoritv of the President in tHe Official Gazette sh&IJ he ..!ccmcJ to he thi.: authori"tativc text in Hindi. The spaces to he filled in lhe Hindi fonn might cause confusion to a person unfamiliar with the langua~e. but one familiar with the langua~e \>ill understand that Lhc space provided in •he Form is for filling in the name of the Parliamen· tar1 Constituency. In the present case, the proposer had not been mi<· led by the Form, and the appellant. who actually filled it of before p-!'f1inJ.! it signed to bv the· proposer. was informed of the defect in fillin~. [160C-E: 161l'-F.Hl ~2) This defect \\'as essentially of a suhstantial /character aT>d diO not fall within those provisions where the Returning Officer is enjoined either to get the defect rectified o: ignore it. Jt \Vas not the duty 0f thl! Returning Offic..::r at the stage of scrutiny to Ura\v the attention of the nppe!Iant to this substantial defect for the purpose of getting it cured. and J";e- \\'as fully justHied in rejecting the nomination paper. ft64F·H! Under s. 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People ;\ct, 1951. the Returning Officer mav reject a nomination on t..'ic ground 'that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of s. 33 or s. 34. Section 33 (1) provides that a nomination has to be presented after being completed in the pr.scribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elcctcr of !he Constituenc'r as pro~r. This requirement is mandatory and s. 36( 4) clearlv contemplates that where the defect i• 6f a substantial character. tbe Returnin~ Officer is not enioined to have ·r rectified but has to reject the nomination paper. [163A-B. D. F-G] 158 SUPllBMB COUllT llBPOllTS [1973] 2 s.c.ll. Rauan Anmo/-Singh & Another v: Atma Ram & Otlzer.r [1955] 1 S.C.R. *Ill and Ram Dayal v. Brijram 'Singh & Others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 530, followed. Kashi Prasad v. Harigen Ram & Another. Election Petition '\o. 44 of 1967 decided on January 19, 1968, referred to. [Desirability of amendment of the Hindi vcrs;on of tho form pointed out.] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 290.i of 1971. Appeal under S. 116-A of the Represent~tion of the Poople Act, 1951 dated October 4, 1971 of the Madhya Pra.desh High Court at Jabalpur in E.P. No. 3 of 1971. S. S. Khanduja, Pramod Swarttp and Lalita Kohli for the appellant. N. A. Palkhiwa/a, A. S. Bobde and J. B. Dadacha11ji for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya l'radesh High Co11rt in an election petition filed by the appellant Prahladdas Khandclwal one of the candidates for the Mid-te
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.