Summary
Respondents challenged in the High Court the election of the appellant to Fatehbad Constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly under s.100(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (Act, for short) on the ground that the nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The proposer of Mani Ram Chhapola was one Brij Bhushan while the proposer of Raj Tilak was one Upender Kumar. Brij Bhushan's serial number in the electoral roll was 26 while Upender Kumar's was 77. In Form 3A, these numbers were correctly indicated. But in the nomination papers the numbers had been shown as 126 and 177 respectively The Returning Officer rejected these nomination papers as the serial number of the proposers as disclosed in the nomination papers did not tally with reference to the electoral roll. The High Court set aside the election of the appellant holding that the Returning Officer acted mala fide and had either directly or indirectly been responsible for the alteration in the nomination papers, since the nomination papers when filed were in order and while they were in the custody of the Returning Officer's Establishment, interpolations had been made and on the basis thereof the nomination papers had been rejected.
Allowing the appeal to this Court by the appellant,^HELD: 1. (i) When admittedly the nomination papers have been handled by the staff in the establishment of the Returning Officer and by the candidates and their agents before scrutiny began, it is difficult to ascribe the insertion of figure '1' to the Returning Officer. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court that the Returning Officer either by himself or through somebody caused the interpolation to be done is totally unwarranted even if this Court accepts as a fact that the figure '1' appearing before the rest of the number in the column for serial number in the electoral roll was not there when the nomination papers had been filed. Strictly speaking, the insertion in the instant case is a forgery and amounts to a criminal etc. To put that responsibility on the Returning Officer without cogent evidence is highly improper. [597H; 598A; C-D]593 1. (ii) From the evidence it is clear that the nomination papers were taken up for scrutiny one after the other and the Returning Officer has stated that he used to pass orders either of acceptance or rejection of each of the nomination papers after due scrutiny. That position has also been accepted by witnesses on the sides of the election petitioners. The evidence on the side of the election petitioners does indicate that the nomination papers were first shown to the candidates and their agents and scrutiny followed thereafter. The Returning Officer had denied, as already pointed out, that he had made an open declaration that all the nomination papers were in order. Mani Ram Chhapola has admitted in his deposition that by 2 P.M. on the date of scrutiny the fact that his nomination paper had been rejected on the ground indicated had been notified to him by the Returning Officer. If the Returning Officer wanted to play any mischief he could have avoided intimating the fact of rejection or at any rate delayed the same. In the absence of cogent evidence on the side of the election petitioners and accepting the evidence of the Returning Officer that he had scrutinised the nomination papers one after the other and contemporaneously accepted or rejected the same by providing grounds of rejection, there is no doubt that contemporaneous order rejecting the nomination papers had been made in the instant cases. [598 F-H; 599A]2(i) Indisputably the insistence on disclosure of the serial number in the prescribed column against the proposer is for the purpose of identifying the proposer and ascertaining that he is competent to propose. The scope of scrutiny is obviously to verify the contents of the nomination paper with a view to ascertaining whether the form is in order and what is required to be complied with by the election law has been duly complied with. This Court has repeatedly held that election proceedings are strict in nature and what is required to be performed in a particular manner has to be done as required and substantial compliance has ordinarily no place while dealing with the Act or the Rules made thereunder. That is why an exception has been made by inserting sub-s. (4) of s.36 of the Act. Therefore, to cast the obligation of the Returning Officer to look through the entire electoral roll of a particular part with a view to finding out the identity of the proposer is not the requirement of the law. To read that as an obligation is likely to lead to a unworkable position. [601 C-F]2(ii) The contents of the proviso to S.33 sub-s. (4) and the provisions of sub-s. (4) of s. 36 of the Act when read together make it clear that the mistake with reference to the serial number was such an error in this case which could be corrected. Under section 36(1) of the Act, on the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, election agents, one proposer of each candidate and one another person duly authorised in writing by each candidate are entitled to appear before the Returning Officer, and such persons are entitled to reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers The purpose of making such provision is to facilitate scrutiny. The presence of candidate, his election agent and another person acquainted with the Constituency would certainly facilitate the process of scrutiny. Defects covered by the proviso to s. 33(4) could easily be resolved if people authorised under s. 36(1) of the Act are present at the time of the scrutiny. [603 B-D]594 2(iii) In the instant case, no one was available, for instance, when the Returning Officer took up the nomination paper of Mani Ram Chhapola, to indicate to the Returning Officer that his serial number in the electoral roll was 26 and not 126. If this had been pointed out and on summary enquiry Returning Officer was satisfied that it was a mistake, clerical in nature, and the identity of Brij Bhushan was not in dispute, there would have been end of the matter. If the correlation has not been made and the Returning Officer has no assistance to fix up the identification it cannot be said to be a defect not of substantial character. Moreover, it could not be statutory obligation of the Returning Officer to scrutinise the electoral roll for finding out the identity of the proposer when the serial number turns out to be wrong. But if interested and competent persons point out to the Returning Officer that it is a mistake, it would certainly be his obligation to look into the matter to find out whether the mistake, is inconsequential and has, therefore, either to be permitted to be corrected or to be overlooked. When scrutiny was taken up Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak on their own showing were not present before the Returning Officer.Similarly, the proposers, Brij Bhushan and Upender Kumar were also absent. Though there is evidence on the side of the election petitioners that the Assistant Returning Officer was present at the time of scrutiny, he as PW.4 has categorically denied that fact. The Returning Officer, RW.3, has stated that the Assistant Returning Officer was not present when he took up scrutiny on the nomination papers.There is also evidence from the side of the appellant that the Assistant Returning Officer was not present. In the circumstances, if the nomination papers have been rejected for mistake in the nomination papers it is the candidates themselves who have to thank their lot and no mistake can be found with the Returning Officer. Therefore, the nomination papers were validly rejected. Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, C.A.No. 2650/84 disposed of on 13.3.85 followed. [603 E-H; 599B-D; 604 B-C]See the full content of this document
Extract
Lila Krishan VS. Mani Ram Godara & Ors
PETITIONER: LILA KRISHAN Vs.RESPONDENT: MANI RAM GODARA & ORSDATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1985BENCH: MISRA RANGNATHBENCH: MISRA RANGNATHFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZAVARADARAJAN, A. (J)CITATION: 1985 AIR 1073 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 592 1985 SCC Supl. 179 1985 SCALE (1)991CITATOR INFO : F 1985 SC1079 (5)ACT: Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 33 (4) and 36(4)-Scrutiny of Nomination Papers-Scope of-Whether Returning Officer is under an obligation to verify the entire Electoral Roll to establish identity of proper.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4123 of 1984.From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.84 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in E.P. No. 1 of 1984.H.L. Sibal, O.C. Mathur, S. Sukumaran and D.N. Misra for the Appellant.S.N. Kacker, Mahabir Singh, L.K. Pandey, N. S. Bishnoi,P.K. Sandhir and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under Section 116A(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court 595setting aside the election of the appellant to Fatehabad Constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly. By Notification dated November 23, 1983, the Constituency was called upon to elect a me...
See the full content of this document