SHYAM SUNDER versus SATYA KETU & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 05-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHYA:\1 Sl:NDF.R 
v. 
SA.TYA KETU & ORS. 
October 5, 1966 
(K. N. WA:-!CHOO, J.M. SHELAT AND G. K. MrrrER, JJ.). 
Representation of the People Act, ss. 98, 116-A, 120, 122-Whetlier 
apf.et.:l umler J. 116--A required to he acco1npanied by 'decree of election 
tribunal-whether tribunal to pass 'decree' or memorandum of co1ts. 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, r. 73(2)-First preference in ballot 
paper indicated by Rontan numeral I in.rreacl of Arabic nu1neral-Whe-
ther ballot paper valid-Whether use of words '1' or 'one' after numeral 
'1' invalidates vote. 
In an election to a seat to the U.P. Legislative Council in accordance 
with the system of proportional representation by means of single trans-
ferable vote, the respondent was declared elected. The appellant, who 
was also a candidate challenged the election li>y an election petition. He 
alleged that certain ballot papers counted in favour of the respondent 
were invalid, because in violation of r. 73(2) of the O:>nduct of Election 
Ru!.,, 1961, they bore the Roman numeral I 
instead of the Arabic 
numeral I. The Election Tribunal upheld the contention. The respon. 
dent appealed to the High Court and in that appeal the appellant took a 
preliminary objection that the appeal should be dismissed as it was not 
accompanted by a copy of a decree containing details of cost directed to 
be prepared by the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed 
the prelimi-
nary objection and allowed the appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (i) Tho High Court rightly dismissed the preliminary objection; 
in an appeal to the High Court under s. 116-A of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1951, all that is necessary to be filed is a copy of the 
judgment of the Tribunal and no more. 
[758 El 
There is no provision 
in Part VI of the 
Act for the passing of a 
decree by the Election Tribunal. 
Section 98 
\vhich refers to the deci-
sion of the Tribun:tl provide:l in specific terms th:tt the Tribun;il shall make 
an order at the conclusion of the trial and indicates ~he th:-ce tvpes ot 
orders that the Tribunal is entitled to make. 
Section 116-A provides for 
an appeal noJ from a decree of the tribunal but from an order passed 
by it, under s. 98. 
What may be prepared on the basis of an order for 
costs passed by a tribunal would be a memorandum of costs and not a 
'decree'. . The fact that under s. 90(1) an election has to be tried 
as 
nearly as may he in accordance with the procedure applicable under 
the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits docs not mcao that a 
decree should be prcP.ared by the Tribunal 
in 
the same manner as a 
decree is prepared by a civil 
court at the 
end of the 
trial of a suit. 
(756 B, H; 757 CJ 
Rule 2 in Chapter XIV-A of the Rules of the AllahahaJ High Court 
with respect to appeals from orders of clc;::l'.oil trihunal is al~o in accord-
ance with the scheme of the Act and docs not require a copy of 
any 
decree to be filed with the appeal. 
(758 BJ 
(ii) Ruic 73(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 do°' 
not 
require that the figure I must be marked in the Arabic form. 
Where 
fi!!Ure 1 is marked on the ballot paper, whether it be in one form or 
other including the Roman form. that is in full compliance with the rule, 
and the ballot paper would not be invalid in the circumstances. (158 H; 
759 G] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHYAM SUNDER v. SATYA KETU (Wanchoo, /.) 
753 
Any other word like "st" after the Roman :figure I or the word "one" 
in brackets thereafter would not invalidate 
the vote for the figure "I" 
would show the first preference. 
[759 HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 204of1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 10, 1965 
of the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No. 213of1964. 
G. N. Dikshit, for the appellant. 
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the 
Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances. 
An election was held for one seat to the U. P. Legislative Council 
from the Rohilkhand Graduates Constituency· on April 22, 1962. 
There were 14 candidates, and election was held in accordance with 
the system of proportional representation by means of single trans-
ferable vote. Total number of votes cast were 4412 and 2207 first 
preference votes were required to secure the return of any candidate 
at the first count. As no candidate secur

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