SHEODHAN SINGH versus MOHAN LAL GAUTAM

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 24-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHEODHAN SINGH 
v. 
MOHAN LAL GAUTAM 
January 24, 1969 
(S. M, Suoo, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Election petition-Whether abates on di.vsolution of legislature-Pre .. 
sentation by Advocate's clerk in petitioner's pr~sence ·-If proper presenta. 
tion. 
The responoent's election to the 
U.P. 
Legislative 
Assembly 
in 
February, 1967, was challenged by the appdlant in an election petitioli 
on various grounds including allegations of corrupt practices. 
The res-
pondent raised two preliminary objections before the High Court namely, 
(i) the petition was not maintainable as it was not properly presented; and 
(ii) the petition ceased to be maintainable as a result of dissolution of the 
U.P. Legislative Assembly by virtue of the 
President's proclamation of 
April 15, 1968, under article 356 (I) of the Constitution issued during 
the pendency of the election petition before the High Court. These preli-
minary objections were rejected by the High Court, which also dismissed 
the petition on the merits. 
On an appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in holding that the require-
ments of law as to the presentation of a petition were fully satisfied as 
the electrnn petition was presented to the Registry by an Advocate's Clerk 
in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner in substance, though not 
in form, himself presented the petition. (ii) There was no force in the 
contention that the petition had become infructuous in view of the dis-
solution of the Legislative Assembly. [418H] 
The question for consideration was not only the validity of the election 
but aloo the allegation of corrupt practices which, if established, would 
involve the respondent incurring certain electoral disqualifications. 
It is clear from the provisions of Chapters III and IV. of Part VI of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that the contest in an elccilion 
petition ts realty between the constituency and the person or persons com-
plained of. 
Onoe the machinery of the Act is moved by a candidate or 
an elector, the carriage of the case does not entirely rest with the peti-
tioner. 
~fhe reason for these provisions is to ensure to the extent possible 
that the persons who offend the election law, are not allowed to avoid 
the con.sequences of their misdeeds. 
[421G] 
The law relating lo withdrawal and abatement of election petitions is 
exhaustively dealt with in Chapter IV of Part VI of the Act. In deciding 
whether a petition has abated or not it was not possible to travel outside 
the provisions contained in that Chapter. The Act does not provide for 
the abatement of an election petition either when the returned candidate 
whose election is challenged resigns or when the assembly is dissolved. 
[4210] 
Carter and Anr. v. Mills 9, Common Pleas p. 117; distinguished; Ghasi 
Ram v. Dal Singh and Others (1%8) 3 S.C.R. 102: followed, 
(iii) On the facts, the High Court had rightly dismissed the petition. 
417 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 $.C.R. 
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1564 of 
A 
1968. 
Appeal under s. 116-Ai of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 23, 1968 of 
the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No. 40 of 1967. 
Danial Latifi, S. J. Hyder, Rajindra Singh and M. I. Khowaja, 
for the appellant. 
Veda Vyasa, K. K. Jain, H.K. Puri, G. N. Dikshit, R. N. Dik· 
shit, S. N. Sinha, K. C. Sharma and M. K. Garg, for the respon· 
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegdc, J. 
This appeal under s. ll 6A of the Representation 
of the People A~t, 1951 arises from the decision in Election Peti-
tion No. 40 of 1967 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad. In that petition the appellant challenged the election 
of the respondent to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from lglas 
Constituency in the general election held in February 1967. In 
that election the appe!lant, the respondent and four others con-
tested. The respondent secured 10,705 votes more than the 
appellant. 
Other candidates secured Jess votes than the appel-
lant. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on 
various grounds, most of which were given up either in the trial 
court or in this Court. The High Court dismissed the election 
petition. Against that order the appellant has come up in appeal. 
Before going into the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to 
deal with the preliminary objections

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