LexRAM BHUAL versus AMBIKA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAMBHUAL A v. AMBIKA SINGH SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] B Election Laws: Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 33(4) and 36(4)-Nomination paper-Rejection of-Election petition-Returned candidate's election challenged by defeated candidate on the plea that the Returning Officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, c had wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate- 1ndependent candidate had to be proposed by at least ten qualified persons- D While furnishing details of qualified persons, the ninth proposer was shown as Serial No. 392 in the voters' list-Returning Officer on finding that Serial No. 392 in the voters' list was not the ninth proposer rejected the nomination of the independent candidate-Name of the ninth proposer was at Serial No. 352 on the same page of the voters' list as Serial No. 392-The independent candidate pointed out to the Returning Officer that Serial No. shown was E only an error which was liable to be overlooked-High Court declared the e/ec/ion of the returned candidate void under S. 100(/)(c)-Correctness of- Held: Under S. 36(4) the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character- The defect being only an error in the Serial No. and that the ninth proposer F was actually at Serial No. 352 on the same page of the voters' list is a minor defect which could have been got corrected or could even have been overlooked-The nomination paper could not have been rejected on that ground-High Court's judgment affirmed. The appellant's election to the State Legislative Assembly was G challenged by the respondent, the defeated candidate, under Section IOO(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The plea was that the Returning Officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, had wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate. 693 H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A The independent candidate had to be proposed by at least ten qualified persons. While iurnishing the details of the qualified persons, the ninth proposer was shown as Serial No. 392 in the Voters' list. The Returning Officer on finding that Serial No. 392 in the Voters' list was not the ninth proposer, straightaway rejected the nomination of the appellant. The name of the ninth proposer was at Serial No. 352 of the same page of the Voters' list B as Serial No. 392. The independent candidate pointed out that this was a minor error in terms of Sections 33(4) and 36(4) of the Act which was liable to be overlooked and his nomination accepted. The High Court allowed the election petition on the ground that the rejection of the nomination of the independent candidate was improper and C declared the election of the appellant as void under Section 1 OO(l)(c) of the Act. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. It is clear that the rejection of the nomination of the independent candidate by the Returning Officer was only on the ground that out of ten proposers, the ninth prop'Jser was described as the voter at Serial D No. 392 in Part 91 of the Voters' list. It is also clear and it is not disputed, that the name of the ninth proposer is actually included in the Voters' list, but as Serial No. 352 in Part 91 of the Voters' list. It is also clear that both Serial No. 352 and Serial No. 392 of Part 91, are printed on the same page of the Voters' list. Therefore, it required no detailed search by the Returning E Officer to find out or to satisfy himself that the ninth proposer was a voter in the constituency. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the independent candidate does not say that the name of the ninth proposer was not in the Voters' list. It only says that Serial No. 392 shown in the nomination as the serial number of the ninth proposer as a voter F was found not to be correct. 1699-D-E-FI 2. It was specifically pleaded that the independent candidate had pointed out to the Returning Officer that even though there was an error in showing the serial number in the Voters' list of the ninth proposer, he was really the voter, shown at Serial No. 352 and in spite of it being so shown, the Returning Officer had rejected the nomination of the independent candidate. This pleading G has not been denied by the appellant in his written statement. Of cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.