SURENDRA NATH KHOSLA versus DALIP SINGH

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 29-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
179 
SURENDRA NATH KHOSLA 
v. 
DA.LIP SINGH 
(S. R. DAS c. J., BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.) 
Election-Improper rejection of 
nomination 
paper-Whether 
result oj the 
election 
matet'ially 
affected-Presumption-Double 
me1J1ber constituency-Whether election wholly void-Attestation-
Thumb i111prem"on pf 
proposer and Sf:con(ier-Whether .properl:y 
attested-The 
Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 (XLIII qf 
1951), s, 100(1) (c)-The Representation of the People (Conduct of 
Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, r. 2(2). 
Twelve candidates filed nomination papers for election from 
a double member constituency for the State Assembly, one of the 
seats being reserved for the Schedule Castes. The thumb impres-
sions of the proposer and seconder of a candidate were attested by 
a magistrate specified in this behalf by the Election Commission. 
But there had been a mistake o~ omission 
of the name of the 
magistrate in the communication sent by the Election Commission 
to the local authorities. 
The returning officer rejected the nomina-
tion paper on the ground that there was no proper attestation of 
the thumb impressions of the proposer and seconder. 
An election 
petitio11_ was filed to set aside the election on the ground that the 
nomination paper had been rejected improperly and that this had 
materially affected the result of the election. The Election Tribunal 
set aside the entire election : 
Held, ( i) that the magistrate having in fact been specified by 
the Election 
Commission, the attestation by him was good attesta-
tion, and the 
rejection of the 
nomination paper 
was improper, 
(2) that in the case of an improper rejection of a nomination paper 
there was a presumption that the result of the election had been 
materially affected, and ( 3) that the whole election, including that 
of the Schedule Caste candidate, was void. 
,Vasisht Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 509, 
Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Syed Ahmad lshaque, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1104, 
distinguished. 
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas fasani v. Moreshwar Parashram, (1954) 
S.C.R. 817, and Karnail, Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar, 
10 
Elec. Law Reports, 189, referred to. 
CML 
APPELLATE 
JurusoICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 23 of 1956. 
Appeal 
against the 
judgment 
and order dated 
August 26, 1955, of the Election Tribunal, Patiala, in 
Election Petition No. 12 of 1954. 
Suttndra Nlllh 
Kho,/a 
T, 
Dalip Singh 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
Gopa/ Singh, for the appellants. 
/agan Nath Kaushal and Naunit Lal, for respond-
ent No. 6. 
1956. November 29. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SINHA J .-This appeal by special 
leave is directed 
against the majority judgment and order of the Election 
Tribunal of Patiala, dated August 26, 
1955, declaring 
the two appellants' election to be void on account of 
the improper rejection 
of the nomination 
paper 
of 
Buta Singh, respondent 18. 
In order to appreciate the arguments raised on behalf 
of the appellants it is necessary to state the following 
facts : 
The 
appellants and respondents 2 to 18 filed 
their nomination papers on January 9, 1954, for election 
from a double member constituency of 
Samana to the 
Pepsu 
Legislative 
Assembly. 
Of the two seats, one 
was reserved for the Schedule Caste and the other was 
a general 
constituency. Scrutiny 
of the nomination 
papers by the 
Returning Officer took place on January 
13, 1954. 
The Returning 
Officer accepted 
all 
the 
nomination papers except that of Buta Singh aforesaid 
on the 
ground that the thumb 
impressions 
of 
the 
proposer and the seconder had not been attested by an 
officer in accordance with the 
Election Rules. 
Polling 
took place on 
February 
24, 1954, and 
the 
results 
announced in the 
Pepsu Gazette 
on 
March 4, 1954. 
The results 
thus 
announced 
showed that the 
first 
appellant, Surendra Nath Khosla, had obtained 13,853 
votes in the general constituency and the second appel-
lant, Pritam Singh, had polled 13,663 votes 
for the 
reserved seat. They having secured the largest number 
of votes 
from 
their respective 
constituencies 
were 
declared to have been duly elected. The other candi-
dates got smaller number of votes 
which it is not 
necessary• to set our here. Buta Singh aforesaid, whose 
nomination paper had been rejected by the 
Returning 
Officer, did not take any further steps. But Dalip Singh, 
the first respondent,

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