RAM PHAL KUNDU versus KAMAL SHARMA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 23-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
J. 
A 
RAM PHAL KUNDU 
v. 
KAMAL SHARMA 
JANUARY 23, 2004 
B 
[Y.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section JOO (1) {c)-
Nomination-Rejection-Validity of-Two candidatesfi"om the same party filing c 
nominations-Form B submitted by 'B' stated that nomination of 'A' filed 
earlier had been rescinded-Returning Officer rejecting nomination of 'A'-
Office bearer of party signing Form B stating on oath that 'A ' was the official 
candidate-'A' challenging election of 'C' on ground of improper rejection of 
nomination-Held, exlrinsic evidence given afler the last date of filing 
nomination cannot be considered-Objection not valid-Election Symbols D 
(Resen•ation and Allotment) Order, 1968-Paras 13 and I 3A . 
. "'( 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 36(4)-Defect of a 
' 
substantial character-Meaning of-Form B having signature of the person 
authorised by the party but not the seal-Held,· not a defect of substantial 
character-Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968-Paras E 
13 and /3A. 
In an election to the Legislative Assembly, the respondent filed his 
nomination paper as the candidate of the Congress Party. In support of 
his nomination, the respondent filed both Form A and Form B before the 
,_> 
Returning Officer. In Form A, the General Secretary of the Congress Party F 
had authorised one "BSH" to intimate to the Returning Officer the name 
of the approved candidate of the Party. In Form B, "BSH" had 
communicated to the Returning Officer the name of the respondent as the 
approved candidate of the Congress Party. The respondent filed his 
nomination paper on the last date for filing nomination at 12.20 p.m. 
G 
4 
On the same day, at 2.50 p.m. one "BS" also filed nomination paper 
,, 
claiming to be the authorised candidate of the Congress Party. "BS" also 
filed Form A and Form B along with his nomination. In Form B filed by 
"BS" it was stated that the earlier notice in Form B in favour of the 
977 
H 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A respondent had been rescinded. Form B submitted by "BS" had signature 
of "BSH" but did not have the seal of the Congress Party. 
At the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper, "BSH" filed an 
affidavit before the Returning Officer stating that the respondent was th•e 
only person nominated as a candidate by the Congress Party. The 
B Returning Officer, after hearing the parties, rejected the nomination paper 
of the respondent. 
The respondent thereafter filed a petition before the Election 
Commission, New Delhi on 6.2.2000 and, by an order dated 7.2.2000, the 
C Election ·Commission set aside the order of the Returning Officer and 
directed him to conduct fresh scrutiny of nominations. Th·e Returnin:~ 
Officer again dismissed the objection raised by the respondent. 
In the elections, the appellant won by a handsome margin. The 
respondent filed an election petition alleging that his nomination paper 
D was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and therefore,, the election 
of the appellant should be set aside and holding of fresh elections should 
be directed. The respondent, inter a/ia, contended: 
E 
F 
(i) 
Form B submitted by "BS" contained only the signature of 
"BSH" and not the seal of the Party and therefore, there was 
no proper authorisation of the Party in his favour; 
(ii) Form B was submitted by "BS" only to the Returning Officer 
and not to the Chief Electoral Officer and therefore, the 
nomination ought to have been rejected; 
(iii) Even the Election Commission had held in favour of th•e 
respondent; 
(iv) "BSH" had himself filed an affidavit before the Returnin:~ 
Officer confirming that the respondent was the only authorised 
candidate of the Congress Party. 
G 
In his evidence, "BSH" admitted his signatures on the Form H 
submitted by "BS" but stated that the said form was not to be submitted 
as no final decision had been taken. The respondent did not examine the 
other members of the Central Election Committee of the Congress party 
to substantiate his case. 
H 
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent, set aside 
l 
• 
f 
' ' 
....... 
• 
R.P. KUNDU v. KAMAL 
979 
--
j_ 
the election of the appellant and directed the Election Commission lo hold A 
....-<" 
a fresh election. 
The appellant filed appeal before the Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. The nomination paper of respondent was rightly rejected. 
Form B submitted

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