LexSHYAMDEO PRASAD SINGH versus NAWAL KISHORE YADAV
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SHYAMDEO PRASAD SINGH v. NAWAL KISHORE YADAV AUGUST 28, 2000 B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.j c D Election Laws : Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 62, lOO(l)(d)(ii)(iv) r/w. Representation of the People Act, 1950, ss.16, 19 and 27(5)-Whether recep- tion of votes of persons not qualified to be enrolled in !he electoral roll could be a ground.for setting aside an election-Held, no; a person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be exdudedfrom exercising his righl to vote on the ground that he did not sarisfy the eligibility requirement uls. 19 or 27(5) of RPA 1950 unless disqualified under s.62(5) of RPA 1951. Biennial elections to the Bihar Legislative Council from the Patna Teachers Constituency were held in April, 1996. The respondent was de· clared elected. The appellant filed an election petition to set aside the election on the E ground that the registration and enrolment of a large number of ineligible persons as electors in the electoral roll and consequently improper recep- tion of votes cast by such illegal electors had resulted in materially affect- ing the result of the election. F G The Election Judge, accepting the plea of the respondent, held that the pleadings contained in the election petition were liable to be struck down consequent whereupon no cause of action survived for proceeding with the trial of the petition. The aggrieved election petitioner then ap· proached this court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court Held : 1.1. Inclusion of persons in the electoral roll by an authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral rolls though they were not qualified to be so enrolled cannot be a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under s.100(1 )( d)(iii) or (iv) of the Representation H of the People Act, 1951. [683-D] 668 S.P. SINGH v. N.K. YADAV [R.C. LAHOTI, J.J 669 1.2. A person enrolled in the electoral list is entitled to cast a vote unless disqualified under s.62(2) to (5) of the 1951 Act. [683-E] 1.3. A person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be excluded from exercising his right to cast vote on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement as laid down in s.19 or 27(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [683-EJ Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V.B. Raju, [1974] 1 SCR 548; Nripendra Bahadur Singh v. Jai Ram Vemw, AIR (1977) SC 1992; uami Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, [1985] 4 SCC 689 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR (1978) SC 851, referred to. Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal for Town Area Saklt, AIR (1959) All 357 and Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh, (1967) 69 Pun. LR 618, ap- proved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 19. 11.98 of the Patna High Court in E.P. No. 5 of 1996. P.S. Mishra, Amitesh Kumar, Vivek Singh, L.R. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Ms. Swarupa Reddy and Upendra Mishra for the Appellant. Ex-parte for the Respondent. The Judgme:1t of the Court was delivered by A B c D E R.C. LAHOTI, J. Pursu.ant to a Notification issued by the Governor of Bihar under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (here- F inafter the 1951 Act, for short), biennial elections to the Bihar Legislative Council from the Patna Teachers Constituency were held in April, 1996. There were four candidates in the fray including Nawal Kishore Yadav, the respond- ent, who defeated his nearest rival candidate Dr. P.N. Sharma by a margin of 870 votes. Polling was held on 28.4.1996 whereat the respondent secured 3414 G votes as against 2544 votes secured by Dr. P.N. Sharma. The respondent was declared elected. On 24.4.1996 the appellant, an elector duly enrolled in the electoral list of the constituency filed an election petition under Section 80 of the 1951 Act calling in question the election of the responc!ent. The only ground alleged in H A B c D E F G H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. support of prayer for avoiding the election of the respondent was the registra- tion and enrolment of a large number of ineligible persons as electors in the electoral roll and consequently improper reception of votes cast by such illegal electors which had resulted in materially affecting the result of the election insofar as the returned candidate was concerned. The bundle of facts consti- tuting the cause of action as alleged
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.