TEK CHAND versus DILE RAM

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 24-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
, 
TEKCHAND 
v. 
DILE RAM 
JANUARY 24, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Election law: 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: S.IOO(l)(d). 
Election-Election petition-Void election-Declaration of-Grounds 
for-Nomination-Improper acceptance of-Returned candidate's election--
Effect on-Election of returned candidate challenged on the ground that 
nomination of one N was improperly accepted since N was holding an office 
A 
B 
c 
of profit-Allegations that N was an activist of the defeated candidate's D 
party; N cut into the votes of the defeated candidate; votes secured by N 
should have gone to .the defeated candidate-Correctness of-Held: There is 
no evidence that the voters were common to both N and the defeated 
candidate-In the absence of any evidence as to the distribution of the 
wasted votes, it cannot be judicially guessed that votes polled in favour of E 
N would have gone to the defeated candidate-Hence, the result of the 
election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate is not material(v 
affected. 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 48-A. 
Office of profit-Election-Election petition-Election of returned 
candidate challenged on the ground that the nomination of one N was 
improperiy accepted since N was holding an office of profit under the 
Government-N had submitted a notice for voluntary retirement much before 
F 
the election--But no orders passed before the expiry of the notice period-
Eleclion held after the expiry of the notice period-Held: Appointing authority G 
can refuse to accept the notice of voluntary retirement-But such refi1sal has 
to be before the expi1y of notice period-In the absence of such refi1sal. 
voluntary retirement becomes effective from the date of expiry of notice 
period-Therefore, on the dale of scrutiny of nomination papers N was not 
holding an office of profit-Hence, nomination of N was nm improperlv 1-1 
527 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] I S.C.R. 
A accepted-Fundamental Rules, R.56(k)-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 
191(/)(a). 
The respondent-defeated candidate filed an election petition before the 
High Court challenging the election of the appellant-returned candidate to 
the State Legislative Assembly. The respondent contended that the nomination 
B of one N, an independent candidate, was improperly accepted since N was 
holding an office of profit in Government which was a bar under Article 
19l(l)(a) of the Constitution of India; that N was an activist of the respondent's 
party; that the vote bank of the respondent and N was common; that the votes 
secured by N would have gone to the respondent had not the nomination of 
C N been accepted; that the improper acceptance of the nomination of N 
materially affected the result of the election insofar as it concerned the 
appellant-returned candidate; and, therefore, the appellant's election ought 
to be declared void under S.IOO(l)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951. The High Court allowed the election petition. Hence this appeal. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that N, much before the 
election, had given a notice for voluntary retirement from Government service 
under Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and 
his retirement became effective from the date of expiry of the notice period; 
that N was not holding an office of profit on the date of election; and, 
therefore, the nomination of N was not improperly accepted. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that under Rule 56(k) of 
the Fundamental Rules acceptance of voluntary retirement was mandatory; 
and that in the absence of such an acceptance N continued in Government 
service and was holding an office of profit; and, therefore, the nomination of 
N was improperly accepted. 
The following questions arose before this Court:-
I. 
Whether at the relevant time N was holding an office of profit 
being in the service of the State and as such his nomination 
paper was improperly accepted, and, if so 
2. 
Whether the result of the election, insofar as it concerned the 
appellant, had been materially affected to declare it void? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Looking to the evidence it cannot be said that in the 
H constituency all along the respondent's party was leading and that the contest 
/ 
;' 
TEK CHAND v. DILE RAM 
529 
was only between two parties or that it was a stronghold of the respondent's A 
party. T

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