SH. BHOGENDRA JHA versus SH. MANOJ KUMAR JHA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 23-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SH. BHOGENDRA JHA 
v. 
SH.MANOJKUMARJHA 
APRIL 23, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Election Laws : 
Representation of People Act, 1951 : 
Section ]~Election to Parliamentary Constituency-Election of can-
didate held void by the High Court on the ground that the nomination papers 
of 2 candidates (PWs) were not valid and the Returning Officer has not 
conducted summary enquiry-Held : The said two candidates were dummy 
candidates-Not even attempted to satisfy the Returning Officer as to the 
D correctness of the particulars furnished by them in their nomination 
papers-Nor did they file Election Petition--ln the circumstances High Court 
was not right in declaring the election of the appellant as void. 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8299 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.95 of the Patna High Cou~t 
in E.P. No. 7 of 1991. 
Jitendra Sharma, Vijayendra Misra, Binay K. Das, Ms. Gunwant 
Dara and Anil K. Jha for the Appellants. 
AK. Pandey, R.K. Sharma and R.P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant is a returned candidate to the 10th Lok Sabha from 
G 13, Madhubani Parliamentary Constituency in Bihar. The last date for filing 
nominations for the Lok Sabha Elections was April 26, 1991. The date of 
scrutiny was April 27, 1991. Out of 61 candidates who filed nominations, 
three nomination papers of Pawan Kumar Pathak, PW-4 Lal Bahadur 
Singh, PW-6 and another came to be rejected by the Returning Officer 
H during scrutiny. Poll was held on May 23, 1991. Out of 49 candidates who 
676 
B. IHA v. M.K JHA 
677 
remained in the contest, the appellant had secured 3, 30, 111 votes, i.e., A 
51.91 per cent as against the nearest candidate Dr. Jagannath Mishra who 
secured 2, 50, 020, i.e., 39.31 %. Rest of the candidates could not even 
protect their deposits. The respondent Manoj Kumar Jha, an elector filed 
the election petition impugning rejection of the nominations of PW-4 and 
PW-6 as bad in law. The High Court in the impugned judgment has upheld 
his contention and declared the election of the appellant as void in E.P.A. 
No 7/1991 dated August 25, 1995 by Patna High Court. 
B 
In this appeal, the only question is : whether the view of the High 
Court that the Returning Officer had not conducted summary enquiry 
under section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, the C 
'Act') is correct in law ? It is seen that even Pawan Kumar Pathak (PW-4) 
and Lal Bahadur Singh, PW-6 did not feel aggrieved against the rejection 
of the nominations as they did not file election petitions though they were 
examined on behalf of the respondent as witnesses. The appellant, admit-
tedly, was not and could not present himself at the time of scrutiny of 
nomination papers and rejection of the nominations. He did not know what D 
had transpired at the time of .scrutiny and rejection of the nomination. As 
regards PW-4, Pawan Kumar Pathak, the orders of rejection read thus : 
"the proposer name does not tally with the name as entered in the 
electoral roll hence rejected". 
E 
As regards PW-6, it was rejected for the reason given thus : 
"The name of the proposer does not tally with the name as entered 
in the electoral roll hence rejected." 
It is not in dispute that PW-4's proposer's electoral roll number with 
S. No. 413, Part 190 while in his nomination paper he mentioned S. No. 
F 
113 part 190. Lal Bahadur Singh's proposer mentioned his name was in the 
Part 75 of electoral roll; in fact, it is in Part 74. The question, therefore, is; 
whether is was necessary for the Returning Officer to make a roving 
enquiry as regards the correct number of the proposers in the nomination G 
papers and the electoral roll. Section 33 of the Act prescribes procedure 
for presentation of the nomination on the appointed date by each can-
didate either in person or by his proposer, between the specified time 
under sub-sedion (1) thereof. The nomination thereof is to be completed 
in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
the constituency as mandated under Section 31. Under sub-section (4), on 
the presentation of the nomination paper, the Returning Officer has to 
satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate 
and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as 
entered in the electoral

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