UMED SINGH RAO versus MANI RAM GODARA & ORS

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
6i4 
UMED SINGH RAO 
v. 
MANI RAM GODARA & ORS 
May 8, 1985 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND 
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.) 
Representation of the P•ople Act, 1951, ss.98, 99 and JJ6A. 
Assembly election-Discrepancy in particulars in nomination papers of two 
candidates -Rejection by Returning Officer-Election challenged-Evidence of 
Returning Officer-High Court-Stricture against Returning 
Officer 
with 
direction to share custs-Appeal by Returring Officer- ~Vhetlrer maintainab!e-
High Court's order- Whether legal and valid. 
The appellant, a Returning Officer in the by·election to Fateh11bad 
Assembly Constituency of Haryana State, rejecled the nomination papers of 
two candidates. The election of the successful candidate was cahllenged on the 
ground that the nomination papers were in1properly rejected. At the trial the 
successful candidate examined the appellant as R.W.3. While analysing the 
evidence of the appellant the High Court observed that the two nomination 
papers were in order when they were filed and subsequently they were tampered 
with when they were in the custody of the appellant and, therefore, his conduct 
in either tampering with the nomination papers himself or manipulating the 
tampering was guided by ill-motives. Consequently, the petition was accepted 
with costs and election of the successful candidate was declared void. As the 
conduct of the appellant was found to be motivated, half of the costs was 
ordered to be shared by him. 
The 
appellant 
appealed to 
this Court under s.ll6A of 
the 
of Representation People Act, 1951 seeking expunction of the observations as 
also the direction in regard to the costs. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: I. The appellant had acted appropriately in performance of his 
duty as Returning Officer and did not over·step the same; he was not res-
ponsible either directly or indirectly for making any alteration in the two 
nomination papers. The observations made by the High Court are, therefore· 
vacated. The directions for sharing of costs stand also vacated beins 
unwarranted. [621 A-BJ 
tJ.S. RAO V. M.R. GODARA 
615 
2. Th•« was no juatlftcation at all for the High Court to come to the 
conclusion that the conduct of the Returning Officer was most deprecable. 
Until justifiable grounds are made out no evidence should be condemned. 
[620 OJ 
3. The High Court has lost sight of the position that there is a presump-
tion that official acts have been regularly performed and the burden was 
on the pcrion who pleaded to th• contrary and soua;ht a different conclusion 
to bo reached. [620 HJ 
4. In tho connocted appeal a11ainil the deci•ion of the High Court by 
which the election of the returntd candidate was vacated, the judgment of the 
High Court has been reversed by taking a different view in the matter of 
appreciation of tho ovidenc• of Returning Officer, the appellant. [619C] 
5. At the trial the election petitioners have failed to establish the 
alleged motivation for the rejection of the nomination papers. On a reference 
to the demeanour of the appellant as a witness, lhe alleged contradiction or 
variation between the orders of rejection and deposition in Court, the conclu-
iion that appellant was responsible for the alteration of the proposer's serial 
number in the respective nomination papers has been reached. The Court by 
holding to the contrary has concluded that the Returning Officer was not a 
party to any alteration in the nomination papers and he had passed legitimate 
orders of rejection of nomination papers. It has been held that the inconsistent 
statements n1ade by the Returning Officer when he was in the witness box were 
the outcome of confusion. A categorical finding has been recorded that the 
reason ir.dicatcd for rejection of the nomination papers fits in with the defects 
appearing in the documents and the oral evidence given by the appellant. 
[620 C-EJ 
6. Under 1.ll6A of the Act an appeal sbaU lie to the Supreme Court 
on any question whether of law or fact from every order made by the High 
Court under s. 98 or 99. The appellant though not a party to the election 
petition can maintain the appeal on account of the direction for sharing the 
costs and the striclures to justify that direction. [619 D; EJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4263 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1984 of the Pb. & 
Haryana High Court in E.P. No. I of 1984. 
K.P. Bhandari and S.O. Patel for the A

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