ROOP LAL SINGH versus NACHHATTAR SINGH

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 02-11-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

B
I
Q
D
E
F
G
1-1
702
ROOP i..Ai.. SATHi
I
v.
NACHHATTAR SINGH
I
November 2, 1982
(D.A. DBSAI AND A.P. SBN, JJ.J
Election Symbols ( Resetvatlon at!d Allotment) Order 1968-0rder made
under Representation of the People Act, 1951. ·
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Trial of election petition-Prov/ ..
slons of 0. VI, Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 applicable except as modified by
sub-i. (5) of s. 86.
I
'
Reprdentatlon of the Peopk Act, 1951-CI. (a) of sub-s. (I) of s. 83-
Trial of election petition-Omission of £maieria/ facts" reRders whole petition bad
under O. Vil, r. IJ(a), Code of Civil Procedure, '1908-Court cannot strike down
;1ortions only.
Representation of the People Act, 1951-CI. (b) of sub-s. (I) of s. 83-
Trial of election 'petition-Omission of 'particulars'-Court may direct 'further
and better particulars' under 0, VI, r. 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
I
For a candidate to be deemed to be set up by a politica! party under
paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968,
it is essential .that a notice in writing to that effect signed by ··the duly authorised
office-bearer of the political party is delivered to the returning officer of the
conStituency not later than 3 p.m. on the I last day of withdrawal of candidatures.
. The allotment of any sYmbol to ~a candidate by the returning officer is final
under sub-r. (5) of r. 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 except where
it is inconsistent with any directions issued by the -Election Commission in
that behalf,
The appellant, the respondent and one Jagmohan Singh contested 1he
election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly (rom the same constituency and
the respondent was declared elected. The appellant_ challenged the election of
the respondent under s. IOO(l)(dJ(iv) read with s. 123(7) of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951. Paragraphs 4 tO 18 of the petition related to change
of symbols allotted to the candidates. It was averred therein that the last day
for withdrawal of nomination papers was May 5, 1980; that a notice in writing
signed by the authorised ~ffice-bearer of the Indian National Congress (I) to the
effect that Jagmohan Singh was contesting as the candidate of t_hat party
' •
•
•
>--
1
•
' ,..
kooi> LAL v. NACHHATTAR siNGH
had been deHvered to the Retui"ning · Offic~r on that day; that the :Retliriiing
Officer had on May 8, 1980, intimated by a Jetter that on receipt of instfuctions
. from the EISC:tion Commission a change had been effected · in the symbols
allotted to the candidates according to which the sYm.bol 'hand' reserved for
the Indian National Congress (I) had been allotted tO the respondentj that in
terms of p8.ragraph 13 .of -the Symbols Order Jagmohan Singh ollght to have
been deemed to be lhe candidate set Up by the Indian National Congress (I);
that the Election Commission had no power to direct re·allotment of the symbol
once allotted to a candidate under sub-r. (4) of r. 10 and therefore the action
of the Returning Officer in recalling the allotmeht of the symbol 'hand'
tO Jagniohan Singh was in violation of the Act and the rules.made thCreunder.
The respondent contested these averments .in bis written statement and referred
to, the circumstances in which the Election Commission had issued the instruc-
tions relating to.change of symbols.
The respondent -raised a preliminary objection that the averments in
paragraphs 4 to 18 of the petition did not disclose any cause of actioi:i and the
High Court, accepting the objection, ordered deletion of those paragraphs from
the Petition~ The Hiih Court 'held that· it was Incumbent on the appellant 't0
find out the circumstances in which the Election Commission had passed the
order relating to change of-syinbOis and that iri the absence of those matCrial
circumstances non-compliance with r.10(5) or Par.agraph.13 of the, Sy.mbols
. Order could n_ot be spelled out. The High Court further held that the. Symbols
Order was not an order made under the Act and therefore s. IOO(l)(d)(iv) was
.
,
.
not attracted.
1n:·appeal, counsel fOr apt>ellant contended ihat paragraphS 4 tO 18 of
. the petition contained all t~e material facts necessary to show that the chahge
of symbols was in breach of r. 10(~) and paragraph 13 of the Symbols .Order
and the High C'.ourt was not justified in ordering .thiir deletic;>n.
Courisel for respondent contended · tb8t paragr~phs 4 to 18 Or th

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