RANJIT SINGH versus PRITAM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 08-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
,, 
__ , 
A 
B 
RANJIT SINGH 
v. 
PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 
February 8, 1966 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, 
s. M. SJKRI and v. RAMASWAMI JJ.] 
Representation of the People A.ct (43 of 1950), s. 33(5)-Requlre-
menu of section-Copy of electoral roll whether to be filed by candldat• 
with each nominaticn paper-Copy of electoral roll of assembly consti-
tuency whether can be filed in election for Par/iament-'Part', of electoral 
C 
roll to be filed-Filing of incomplete copy of 'parf whether defect of 
substantial character for the purpose of s. 36( 4). 
D 
• 
F 
G 
H 
The appellant's election to Parliament was challenged by the first res-
pond<lnt on the ground that the nomination papers of the third candidate, 
W, had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer and this had mat&-
rially affected the result of the election. 
W had filed three nomination 
papers with on• only of which he had filed a copy of the electoral roll of 
the assembly constituency in purported compliance with s. 33(5) of the 
ReprOllentation of the People Act, 1950. 
The nomination paper with 
which W had filed the said copy was rejected on account of technical 
defects; 
the other two were rejected because no such copy 
was 
filed with them. The Election Tribunal dismissed the first respondent's 
petition holding that the returning officer had rightly rejected the nomi-
nation papers of W. The High Court took the opposite view and set 
aside the election. 
The appellant came to this Court by certificate and 
contended that W had not complied with s. 33(5) because (i) under that 
section a copy of the electoral roll must be produced with every nomi-
nation paper, (ii) W had filed a copy of the electoral roll of the assembly 
CODlltituency and not of the Parliamentary constituency, (iii) the copy 
produced was not a complete copy of the relevant 'part' of the electoral 
roll. 
1 
;{, 
HELD : ( i) The returning officer was wrong in not looking at the 
copy of the electoral roll filed with one of the nomination papers filed 
by W when dealing with the other nomination papers filed by him. Section 
33(5) does not require that a copy must be filed with each nomination 
paper or that any copy should be filed al all, for the candidate is given 
the alternative to produce before the returning officer sach copy at the time 
of scrutiny. The purpose of filing the copy is to ensure that the return-
ing officer is able to check whether the candidate concerned is qualified 
or not and that purpose would be effectively served even if only one copy 
is filed with one nomination paper and no copies are filed with the other 
nomination papers by the said candidate. [547 F-548 DJ 
(ii) The electoral roll for a parliamentary constituency is made up 
by stitching together the electoral rolls of the assembly constituencies 
comprised therein. Therefore if a candidate files a copy of the electoral 
roll of an assembly constituency that copy is sufficient to show that he is 
an elector in the parliamentary constituency in which that assembly cons-
titueacy is includecl. 
W had filed copy of the assembly constituency in 
which he was recorded as an elector and the High Court was right in 
rejecting the contention based on the fact that the copy of the roll 9f the 
parliamentary constituency was not filed. 
[548 G, HJ 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPOllTS 
(1966] 3 S.C.R. 
(iii) Under r. 5 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 it is 
provided that "the roll shall be divided into convenient parts which shall 
bo numborod conaecutiYely". When 1. 33(5) refora to a copy of the rele-
vant parts of the electoral roll it means a part as defined in r. 5. In 
producing not the full part but only a portion of tho electoral roll in 
which be wu recorded 81 an elector W did fail to comply with the re-
quirements of s. 33(5). A complete copy would carry the various amend· 
menlll made in the roll and enablo the returning officer to see whether 
the name of the candidate continued in the roll for the whole of the rele-
vant period. 
The High Court waa not right in illl view that the pro-
duction of an incomplete copy was not a defect of substantial character 
which would make tho nomination paper liablo to bo rejected. Tho nomi-
natiOll papen of W were rightly rejected by tho ro<urning officer though 
for dift'eront reasona. 
(549 D; 551 E-F) 
CI\'IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 459 
of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 

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