LexUTIAMRAO SHIVDAS JANKAR versus RANJITSINH VIJAYSINH MOHITE-PATIL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 9 S.C.R. 538
{---...
A
UTIAMRAQ SHIVDAS JANKAR
v.
RANJITSINH VIJf.YSi.JH MOHllE-PATIL
(Civil Appeal No. 7457 o~ 2008)
B
MAY 15, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND DR~· MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
1
Election laws:
c
Eleetion petition - Jurisdiction of High Court - Held: Ir.
an electjon petition, High Court acts as a Court of original
jurisdiction and the jurisdiction therein stricto sensu cannot
be said to be appellate in nature - On facts, High Court acted
illegally in treating its power only as appellate authority and
.
I
D not as original authority, for it only proceeded to try and
'f
determine as to whether or not the decision making process
was legal - High court ought to ha11e examined the veracity _.
of the rival claims based on the evidence produced by the
parties - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Jurisdiction ·
E of High Court to entertain election petition.
Instructions contained in 'Handbook of Returning Officer'
"
issued by Ele,ction Commission of India - Binding effect of -
y
'
Held: Are binding being statutory in nature.
F
Presumption of validity of nomination papers - Held: It
is obligatory on part of returning ·officer to draw such. a
presumption - This was the intention of Parliament as also
Election Commission - Returning Officer is a quasi judicial
authority - A quasi-judicial authority while deciding an issue
.+
G of fact may not insist upon a conclusive proof.
Administrative law: Decision making process by
Returning Officer - Judicial review - Scope of.
H
538
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 9 S.C.R.
>----,
A
The questions which arose for consideration 'before
this Court were whether the High Court was correct in
confining itself to the decision making process on the
part of the Returning Officer while determining the
genuineness of signatures of the two proposers;
B whether the Returning Officer by shifting the onus of
proof upon the appellant committed an error in its
.;...
decision making process; and whether the purported
t
concession was wrong and in any event, by reason
thereof, the appellant was precluded from adducing I any
c evidence in regard to. the genuin~eness of the ~ignatures
of the proposer Nos. 7 and 8, to which he was otherwise
entitled to.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1. Section 100 of the Representation of
lo--
People Act provides for the grounds for declarfng
--r
election to be void inter alia in a case where a nomination
has been improperly rejected. Improper rejection of a
nomination, on a plain reading of the provision, would not
E mean that for the said purpose an election petitioner can
only show an error in the decision making process by a
Returning Officer but also the correctness of the said
decision. Indisputably, there exists a distinction between
•I·
a decision making process adopted by a statutory
y
F authority and the merit of the decision. Whereas in the
former, the court would apply the standard of judicial
review, in the latter, it may enter into the merit of the
matter. Even in applying the standard of judicial review,
the-scope thereof having been expanded in recent times,
G viz., other than, illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety, an error of fact touching the merit of the
_j-- -
decision vis-a-vis the decision making process would
also come within the purview of the power of judicial
review. [Para 27] (560-E-H]
H
UTIAMRAO SHIVDAS JANKAR v. RANJITSINH
541
VIJAYSINH MOHITE-PATIL
_,. ~
Cho/an Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam
A
(2005) 3 SCC 241; S.N. Chandrashekar v. State of Kamataka
(2006) 3 SCC 208; Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan
(2006) 11 SCC 67; Meerut Development Authority v.
Association of Management Studies & Anr. 2009 (6) SCALE
49, relied on.
B
~
2. The Returning Officer is a statutory authority.
+·
While exercising his power under Section 36 of the Act,
he exercises a quasi-judicial power. For the said purpose,
the statute mandates him to take a decision. A duty of c
substantial significance is cast on him. Improper rejection
of nomination paper may lead a party not to enter into the
fray of elections. It is also now a trite law that once a
finding is arrived at by the Election Tribunal that the order
of rejecting the nomination was improper which would
D
,_
take within its umbrage not only the decision making
'If
process but also the merit of the decision, no further
question is required to be gone intExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.