TADUR BALA GOUD versus M. NARAYAN REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 27-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
A 
TADUR BALA GOUD 
v. 
M. NARAYAN REDDY & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 1989 
B 
[MURARI MORON DUTI AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 19A-Election 
Commission-Secretary-Competence to appoint Assistant Returning 
}----; 
c 
Officers-Under Secretaries-Whether authorised to authenticate 
orders, notifications, on behalf of the Election Commission. 
Administrative Law: Notification-Publication of-By exhibition 
;..+ 
on notice board-Whether amounts to sufficient notice to all persons. 
In the Lok Sabha elections held in 1984, the appellant was 
D declared elected from the Nizamabad Parliamentary Constituency. He 
secured 2,51,172 votes, while Respondent No. 1got2,48,725 votes. An 
election petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act was filed in the 
High Court, by the First Respondent, challenging the election of the 
appellant on grounds of illegalities and irregularities in the counting of 
.•. 
votes, impersonation of voters and corrupt practices. The High Court set 
E aside the election only on one ground that is, the Additional Returning 
Officers in respect of the Nizamabad Parliament Constituency were not 
appointed and authorised by the Election Commission to perform the 
> 
duties and functions of Returning Officers and every action taken by 
such officers, including the tejection of doubtful ballot papers, is abso-
lutely illegal, void and forbidden by law. The High Court gave direc- i · 
F tions to the Election Commission for recounting. 
( 
This appeal, by special leave, is against the High Court's order 
setting aside the election. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the officers were 
G duly appointed and authorised by the Election Commission. The First 
Respondent contended that the officers were not duly appointed by the 
Election Commission and that their purported exercise of power as 
Additional Assistant Returning Officers was without authority and in 
contravention of the relevant legal provisions. 
H , 
Allowing the appeal, 
840 
-~ 
T.B. GOUD v. M.N. REDDY 
841 
HELD: I.I. Under Section 19A of the Act,,.the Secretary to the 
Election Commission is empowered to perform the functions of the 
Election Commission under the Constitution, relevant statutes and the 
roles. The Secretary is, therefore, competent to approve the revised list 
containing the names of officers proposed by the Chief Electoral 
Officer. [845H; 846A-B) 
1.2. Under Secretaries are duly authorised to authenticate 
all orders, notifications and other instruments on behalf of the Elec-
tion Commission, as per the Gazette of India notification dated 
5.4.1958. [847C) 
A 
B 
2.1. In the instant case, the officers concerned were duly 
C 
appointed by the competent authority, viz, Secretary, Election Commis-
sion, and were authorised to perform the duties and functions of 
Assistant Returning Officers for the Nizamabad Parliamentary Consti-
tuency. The appoinments were also duly notified to the Chief Electoral 
Officer, by communicating the same by an officer who was competent to 
authenticate such orders. [847E) 
D 
2.2 Publication of the notification by exhibition on the notice 
boards was, sufficient notice to all persons concerned. [847F) 
3. The High Court was not justified in setting aside the proceed-
ing of counting of votes and the resultant declaration and in ordering E 
a fresh counting of votes in respect of the election from the Parlia-
mentary Constituency in question. The order of the High Court in so far 
as it relates to the findings and directions in this regard is set 
aside. [847G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 733 F 
(NCE) of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 .1.1988 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 1of1985. 
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, A.V. Rangam G 
and J. Eswariah for the Appellant. 
R. Vasudev Pillai, T. V .S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Subodh Markan-
deya, Smt. Chitra Markandeya, G. Seshagiri Rao, Ms. Usha"Saraswat, 
P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. A. Subhashini and M. Narayan Reddy-in-
person, for the Respondents. 
H 
A 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMMEN, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the 
order of the high Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 25.1.1988 in Election 
Petition No. 1 of 1985. The High Court by the impugned order "set 
aside the proceedings of counting and the resultant declaration" made 
B on 28.12.1985 in respect of the election
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.