RAKESH KUMAR versus SUNIL KUMAR

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 09-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAKESH KUMAR 
v. 
SUNIL KUMAR 
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, 0, M. SRINIVASAN 
AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Election Law : 
C 
Representation of People Act 1951, Ss. 33(1), 36(5) r/w Election Sym-
bols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, Rule 13--Respondent and two 
other candidates filing nomination papers as BJP candidates for election to 
the Punjab Vidhan Sabha-Returning Officer raising suo motu objection at 
time of scrutiny that BJP had set up more than one candidate and none could 
D be treated as its candidate-:-Respondent requesting 24 hours' time to produce 
official confinnation of his candidature-Returning Officer declining time to 
Respondent and rejecting nomination paper-Respondent's election petition 
allowed by High Coun and Appellant's election set aside-Held, refusal by 
Returning Officer to grant opportunity to Respondent and rejection of his 
nomination paper was arbitrary exercise of discretion and illegal; it was 
E obligatory for Returning Officer to allow Respondent time to rebut objection 
raised suo motu. 
The respondent and two others, VA and HK, filed their nomination 
papers as candidates of the BJP for election to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha 
F 
from the 57, North Ludhiana Assembly Constituency. 
At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers the Returning Officer 
suo motu raised an objection that BJP had set up more than one candidate 
and therefore none could be treated as its candidate. The Respondent then 
made an application under s. 36(5) of the Representation of People Act, 
G 1951 stating that he was the official BJP candidate and requested for 24 
hours time to produce an official confirmation of his candidature. The 
Returning Officer refused the request for grant of time and rejected the 
nomination papers of the Respondent as well as those of VA and HK. After 
the polling, the Appellant, a candidate of the Indian National Congress, 
H was declared elected. 
470 
-"'I 
L 
( 
.,.._ 
RAKESH KUMAR v. SUNIL KUMAR 
471 
A Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the A 
~ 
Respondent's election petitioc and set aside the election of the appellant 
'/ 
The High Court held that the Returning Officer erred in declining to give the 
Respondent time to meet the objection raised by him suo motu and as such 
the order rejecting the nomination papers of the Respondent as well as VA 
and HK was illegal and improper. The appellant approached this Court by B 
way of a statutory appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The refusal to grant an opportunity to the respondent and 
rejecting his nomination paper was an arbitrary exercise of the discretion c 
vested in the Returning Officer. [ 483-E-F) 
1.2. The failure to exercise his jurisdiction to postpone the decision as 
to the validity of the nomination paper of the respondent, even after the 
respondent had sought time to meet the objection, rendered the rejection of 
the nomination paper of the respondent as both improper and illegal. 
D 
[483-G-H) 
'I' 
1.3. Since the respondent, had by his written application, filed at the 
time of scrutiny of the nomination papers itself claimed to be the official 
candidate set up by BJP, which claim was not disputed by any one else 
during the scrutiny, and had sought time of 24 hours to provide relevant E 
material in support of his submission, it was obligatory on the part of the 
Returning Officer to allow time to him to rebut the objection, suo motu, 
raised by the Returning Officer. [483-B-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8695 of 
F 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.97 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 3 of 1997. 
P.S. Mishra, Neeraj Kr. Jain, Manish Mohan, Aditya Kr. Choudhary, G 
Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Kirti Sinha, Ms. Anita Mohan, U.S. Prasad for the 
Appellant. 
" 
Satya Pal Jain, Naveen Kr. Singh and Randhir Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. This appeal, under Section 116A of the 
Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the 'Act'), is directed 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
dated November 5, 1997. By the impugned judgment a learned Single 
Judge of the High Court allowed Election Petition No.3 of 1997 filed by 
the respondent herein and set aside the election of the appellant herein, 
B the returned candidate, from 57, North Ludhiana Assembly Con

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