# 20 8 KUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH v. JAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 208
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-07-28
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, P. K. Goswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/20-8-kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-v-jai-ram-verma-and-others-7263
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Election to Legislative Council /ro1n
local authorities' constituenf:y-E'lectoral roll not corrected and brought 11ptodate-If would vitiate an election held 011 that basis.
Article 171(3) of the Constitution provides that of the total number of
members of the Legislative Council of a State one third shall be elected by
electorates consisting of members, among others, of loca-1 authorities in the
State as Parliament may by Jaw specify. Part I\/ of the Representation of the
People Act, 1950 which deals with electoral rolls for Council constltuenc1es.
provides ins. 21(2) that if the electoral ro1l is not revised in the manner stated
therein, the validity or continued operation of the said electorr~I roll shall not
thereby be affected.
Section 27(2) of this part prescribes the procedure for
maintaining the electoral roll corrected uptodate.
In the election to the State Legislative Council from the local authorities'
constituency, the appellant was declared elected by a majority of 18 votes. In
this election petition, the respondent, who was the defeated candidate, alleged
that although long before the notification of the election new office bearers i11
place of 13 Presidents of cooperative societies and 4
coopted
members
of
Kshetra Samities were elected, the electoral rolls were not corrected and brought
uptodate as a result of v,rhich persons who were not entitled to vote in the election, participated and that this had materially affected the result.
Upholdin~
the contention, the High Court held that the electoral roll could not be deemed
tn be an electoral rroll for the time being in force within the meaning of s. 2(1) ( e)
read with s. 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because it was
not brought uptodate in accordance \vith the mandatory provisions of s. 27 of
the. 1950 Act and that an election held on the basis of an invalid and ultra vires
electoral roll \Vas void.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The High Court is clearly Mong in holding that the electoral roll
\Vas illegal or ultra vires with reference to the particular entries of voters and
that on that a-ccount the election ·was linble to be set aside.
[216UJ
1. Although under s. 27 the electoral registration officer has to maintain irr
his office the electoral roll corrected uptodate and this had not been done_ in
this case, mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty in preparation
of the electoral roJls is not relevant for the purposes of determining the question·
in the entire scheme of the Act and the object and purpose of preparation of
electoral rolls under the 1950 Act. [2\JG]
2. (a) In a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that
the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even
if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll
or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had on that
score not been corrected before the last hour of making nominations.
After
that dead line the electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and
no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification under s. 16 of the 1950 Act.
[2160]
Baidydnath Panjiar v. Sitarani Mahto & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 839, Kabul Singh
v. Kundan Singh & Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 845, Pan1pakavi Ravappa Balagali v. B. D.
Jatti & Others. [1971] 2 SCR 611 and Hariprasad Mulshankar Trivedi v. V. B.
Raju & Others. [1974] 1 SCR 548 followed.
1
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswami, J.)
20!1
2(b) There is a clear distinction between a challenge to the right of a voter
A
to be registered in an electoral roll and the jurisdiction of an authority appointeo
under the Act to enter a name in the electoral roll.
l215F]
Ran1ji l'ra.\ud Singh v. Rarn Bilas- !ha & four Ors. [1977] 1 SCR 741
and
B. M. Ra111asiran1y v. B. M. Krishna~nurthy and Others [1963] 3 SCR
479
applied.
3. The voters whose participation in

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
20 8
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH
v.
JAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS
July 28, 1977
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Election to Legislative Council /ro1n
local authorities' constituenf:y-E'lectoral roll not corrected and brought 11ptodate-If would vitiate an election held 011 that basis.
Article 171(3) of the Constitution provides that of the total number of
members of the Legislative Council of a State one third shall be elected by
electorates consisting of members, among others, of loca-1 authorities in the
State as Parliament may by Jaw specify. Part I\/ of the Representation of the
People Act, 1950 which deals with electoral rolls for Council constltuenc1es.
provides ins. 21(2) that if the electoral ro1l is not revised in the manner stated
therein, the validity or continued operation of the said electorr~I roll shall not
thereby be affected.
Section 27(2) of this part prescribes the procedure for
maintaining the electoral roll corrected uptodate.
In the election to the State Legislative Council from the local authorities'
constituency, the appellant was declared elected by a majority of 18 votes. In
this election petition, the respondent, who was the defeated candidate, alleged
that although long before the notification of the election new office bearers i11
place of 13 Presidents of cooperative societies and 4
coopted
members
of
Kshetra Samities were elected, the electoral rolls were not corrected and brought
uptodate as a result of v,rhich persons who were not entitled to vote in the election, participated and that this had materially affected the result.
Upholdin~
the contention, the High Court held that the electoral roll could not be deemed
tn be an electoral rroll for the time being in force within the meaning of s. 2(1) ( e)
read with s. 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because it was
not brought uptodate in accordance \vith the mandatory provisions of s. 27 of
the. 1950 Act and that an election held on the basis of an invalid and ultra vires
electoral roll \Vas void.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The High Court is clearly Mong in holding that the electoral roll
\Vas illegal or ultra vires with reference to the particular entries of voters and
that on that a-ccount the election ·was linble to be set aside.
[216UJ
1. Although under s. 27 the electoral registration officer has to maintain irr
his office the electoral roll corrected uptodate and this had not been done_ in
this case, mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty in preparation
of the electoral roJls is not relevant for the purposes of determining the question·
in the entire scheme of the Act and the object and purpose of preparation of
electoral rolls under the 1950 Act. [2\JG]
2. (a) In a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that
the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even
if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll
or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had on that
score not been corrected before the last hour of making nominations.
After
that dead line the electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and
no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification under s. 16 of the 1950 Act.
[2160]
Baidydnath Panjiar v. Sitarani Mahto & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 839, Kabul Singh
v. Kundan Singh & Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 845, Pan1pakavi Ravappa Balagali v. B. D.
Jatti & Others. [1971] 2 SCR 611 and Hariprasad Mulshankar Trivedi v. V. B.
Raju & Others. [1974] 1 SCR 548 followed.
1
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswami, J.)
20!1
2(b) There is a clear distinction between a challenge to the right of a voter
A
to be registered in an electoral roll and the jurisdiction of an authority appointeo
under the Act to enter a name in the electoral roll.
l215F]
Ran1ji l'ra.\ud Singh v. Rarn Bilas- !ha & four Ors. [1977] 1 SCR 741
and
B. M. Ra111asiran1y v. B. M. Krishna~nurthy and Others [1963] 3 SCR
479
applied.
3. The voters whose participation in the election was questioned, were electors
·within the meaning of s. 2(1)(e) of the 1951 Act,
entitled to vote
under
s. 62 of that Act and were not disqualified under s. 16 of the 1950 Act. There·
fore, it \\'Ould have been wrong on the part of the presiding o_fficer not to 3.llow
those voters from participating in the voting even though theff na1nes could, at
the appropriate time, h ave been 1egitin1ate1y excluded from the electoral roll.
[215B-C]
4. The respondent's contention that by reason of the deliberate omission ot
s. 21 in s. 27(2) (e), no finality is intended in the case of an electoral roll foe
a council constituency is without force. The proviso to s. 21(2) relates to revi~
sion of an electoral roll and sets at rest any possible controversy in case there
was no revision of electoral roH for one reason.or other. The proviso, therefore,
has been advisedly inserted in s. 21(2) with a specific purpose of forestalling a
situation.
The same caution is not neeessary in the case
of preparation of
electoral rolls under s. 27 (2), the alterations whereof are concomitant with
statutory transformations of the local authorities under provisions of the local
Acts.
If any modicum of caution is yet necessary, even that is preserved bv
s. 23(3) \vhich is made applicable, in terms, under s. 27(2)(e). [216A·C.j
Civil. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd May 1975 of the
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow in Election Petition No. 11 of 1974.
P. R. Mridul and E. C. Agrawala, for the Appellant.
P.H. Parekh, (A. C.), for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J.
This a]Jpeal under section l 16A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the iudgment of
the Allahabad High Court in the matter of an election to the !J.P.
Legislative Counci'/ held on April 28, 1974, from the Local Authorities' Constituency, Faizabad.
We are concerned here with Kshettra
Samitis which are the local authorities (see Fourth Schedule of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950, Uttar Pradesh). Besides
the appellant, ten candidates (respondents 1 to 10) filed their nomination papers.
Six of them (respondents 5 to 10)
had withdrawn
their candidature.
Out of the five left there was no contest worth the
name from respondents 2, 3 and 4.
The principal contest, therefore,
was between the appellant and respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be
described only as respondent).
The last date for
submission
of
nomination papers was April 2, 1974. At the poll the appellant
secured 92 7 votes and the respondent 909, the difference being only
of 18 votes.
The appellant was, therefore, declared elected on April
29, 1974.
The respondent filed an election petition (being No. 11 of 1974)
before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
As many
as 13 iss'ues were raised before the High Court and we are principally·
B
G
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
. . D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 S.C.R.
concerned with only one _question which is the subject matter of issue
Nos. 1, 4 and 13.
The ISsues read as follows:-
··1. (a) Whether the votes cast by the persons mentioned in
cl". use (a) of para 4 of the election
petition were
v01d?
(b) Were those persons not electors within the m.:aning
of section 2( 1) (a) of the
Representation
of
the
People Act, 1951 on 28--4-1974 when the chtion
was held?
4. (a) Whether the five persons named in para 8
of
the
election petition had ceased to be cooptcd members
of Kshettra Samitis after the expiry of the term of
Kshettra Samiti Bhiaon in the year 1973 ?
·
( b) Can this question be enquired into by this Tribunal'?
( c) If so were the said persons not electors on the date
of election and as such not entitled to vote ?
( d) Whether the votes of the said persons are void'?
( c) Whether the reception of the void votes of the said
persons materially affected the result of the election?
13. (a) Whether the electoral roll on the
basis
of which
election was held is ultra vires as alleged in para 17
of the election petition?
(b) Whether this question can be taken notice of by the
Tribunal in this election petition?
( c) Whether the election held on the basis of
the said
electoral roll is void?
These issues cover the case of 17 persons whose
names
were
recorded as electors in the electoral rolls grounded on the
requisite
qualifications that 13 of them were Presidents of their respective Cooperative Societies and the remaining 4 were coopted members
of
Kshettra Samitis.
But since they had ceased to be the Presidents or
coopted members on the new office bearers being subsequent! y elected
in their places long before the notification of the election, they were
wrongly continued in their electoral rolls and as such were not entitled
to vote, notwithstanding the presence of their names in the electoral
rolls.
Their participation in the election has materially affected the
result.
This is the case of the respondent.
The High Court accepted the contention and set aside the election
observing as follows :-
"On these facts it is more than evident that the concerned OJ!icers failed in their mandatory duty and they did not
correct the electoral roll upto date as required by section 27.
This incorrect electoral roll could not therefore be deemed
to be the electoral roll for the time being in force within the
..
"'· I
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswami, J.)
211
meaning of section 2(1l(c) read with section 62 of
Act.
The election held on the basis of this
invalid
ultra vires electoral roll is also void".
1951
and
The High Court, however, observed that '"it is not known in whose
favour they exercised their votes so as to exclude them".
We may here observe that i[ the High Court is right on the first
point a further question will arise whether the election of the appellant J3
has been materially affected by the reception of void votes
in
his
favour.
As stated earlier, the High Court has not addressed itself to
this aspect.
·
The principal question that arises for consideration in this appeal
is whether the High Court is right in holding that the electoral roll
was invalid and the voters recorded therein were. as such, disqualified
C
from voting on the date of dcction.
Article 171 of the. Constitution provides for composition of
the
Legislative Councils.
Under sub-article (3) thereof "Of the
total
number of members of the Legislative Council of a State-
( a) as nearly as may be, one third shall be elected by
electorates consisting of members of municipalities,
district boards and such other local authorities in the
State as Parliament may by law specify".
Part IV of the Representation of the People Act 1950 (briefly the
1950 Act) deals with electoral rolls for Council Constituencies. SecD
tion 27 in that Part provides for preparation of electoral rolls
for
Council Constituencies.
Sub-section (2) of that section reads as
E
follows:-
"(2) For the purpose of elections of the Legislative Council
of a State in any local authorities' constituency-
( a) the electorate shall consist of members of such local
authorities exercising jurisdiction in any place or
F
area within the limits of that constituency as are
specified in relation to that State in
the Fourth
Schedule;
(b) every member
of each
such
local
authority
within a local authorities' constituency shall be
entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for
that constituency.
( c) the electoral registration officer
for
every_ local
authorities' constituency shall
mamtam
in
his
office in the prescribed manner and form the electoral roll for that constituency corrected up-Iodate;
.
( d) in order to enable the electoral registration officer
to
maintain
the
electoral soil corrected up-Iodate, the chief executive officer
of
every local
G
H
c
D
E
F
G
H
212
(e)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 1 S.C.R.
authority (by whatever designation such officer
may be known) shall immediately inform the electoral registration officer about every change in the
membership of that local authority; and the electoral registration officer shall, on receipt of the
information, strike off from the electoral roll the
names of persons who have ceased to be
and
include therein the names of persons who' have
become, members of that local authority; and
the provisions of sections 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23
shall apply in relation to local authorities' constituencies as they apply in relation to assembly
constituencies".
This sub-section was substituted by the Amendment Act 2 of 1956.
There were also some significant changes in the 1951 Act by Amendment Act 27 of 1956.
For example, the words "or of any other Act
or rules relating to election" were deleted from the original section
108(2)(c) by the 1956 Amendment Act, which goes to show that
violation of the provisions of the 1950 Act were not included as one
of the grounds, in the above clause, liable to materially affect the result
of an election.
In the context of sub-section (2) of section 27 of the
1950 Act, section 23 provides for correction of entries in electoral rolls
either on application made to the electoral registration officer or on his
own motion.
Section 23 of the 1950 Act is material for our purpose and may be
read :
"23. ( l) Any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the electoral
registration officer for the inclusion of his name in
that roll.
(2) The electoral registration officer shall, if satisfied that
the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein :
Provided that if the applicant is registered in the electoral
roll of any other constituency, the electoral registration
officer shall inform the electoral registration officer of that
other constituency and that officer shall, on receipt of the
information, strike off the applicant's name from that roll.
(3) No amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry
shall be made under section 22 and no direction for
the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section, after the last
date for making nominations for an election in that
constituency or in the parliamentary constituency
within which that constituency is comprised and before
the completion of that election".
·~
I
J
,.
·•
..
KUNWAR NRlPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswami, J.)
213
Under section 24, there is provi'sion for appeal from any order
A
1passed under section 22 or section 23.
We may also refer to section 30 which has been relied upon by the
.appellant.
"30. No civil court shall have jurisdiction-
( a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether
any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an
electoral roll for a constituency; or
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by or
under the authority of an electoral registration officer,
or of any decision given by any authority appointed
under this Act for the revision of any such roll".
·section 32 provides for punishment of the officer concerned for breach
-of otficial duty in connection with the preparation, revision or correc-
·tion, etc. of electoral rolls.
We are not required to wri.te on a clean slate with regard to the
-controversy raised in this appeal. The High Court appears to have
been impressed by the fact that a duty is cast under section 27 of the
1950 Act on the electoral registration officer to maintain the electoral
roll corrected up-to-date and that since this had not been done the
names of the voters who had admittedly ceased to be Presidents or
coopted members some time in 1973 ought not to have appeared in.
the electoral rolls and that as such they were disqualified from voting
fa the election.
It is true that under section 27 the electoral registration
officer has to maintain in his office an electoral roll corrected up-to-date.
So far as any change in the membership of
·a local authority is concerned there is also a duty cast under section
27(2)(d) on the chief executive officer of every local authority to
"immediately inform the electoral registration officer about such a
·change.
The electoral registration officer, on receipt of such information from the chief executive officer, shall strike off the old names and
substitute the new names of members of the particular local authority.
Even the new members, themselves, could apply for registration of
their names by deletion of those or their predecessors in due time.
This was not done.
Mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty in preparation of the electoral rolls is not relevant for the purpose of determinin~
the question in the entire scheme of the Act and the obiect and purpose
of preparation of electoral rolls under the 1950 Act.
In Baidyanath Panjiar v. Sitaram Malito & Or.~.,(')
this Court
categorically held as follows :-
(1) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 839.
•
c
•
E
F
G
H
A
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
l1978J 1 S.C.R.
"A fair reading of the various clauses in s. 27 (2) will make
it clear that the entries in an electoral roll of a constituency, as they stood 011 the last date for making the nominations for an election in that constituency should. be considered
as final for the purpose of that election".
In Kabul Singh v. Kundun Singh & Ors., (') it was further held as
B
follows:-
c
D
E
F
"The mandate of that provision is plain and unambiguous.
It prohibits inclusion of any name in the electoral roll after
the prescribed date whether the application for inclusion was
made before or after that date".
In Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali v. B. D . .latti & Otherse) , this
Court again held as follows :-
"The entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and the amplitude of
iL<; provisions show that the entries made in an Electoral Roll
of a constituency can only be challenged in accordance with
the machinery provided by it and not in any other manner
or before any other forum unless some question of violation
of the provisions of the Constitution is involved".
In Hariprasad Mulslwnker Trivedi v. V. B. Raju and Others, e)
Mathew, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench and after referring to
several earlier decisions of this Court reached
the conclusion
as
follows:-
"Section 30 of
that Act makes it clear that civil courts
have no power to adjudicate the question. In these circumstances we do not think that it would be incongruous to infer
an implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the court trying an
election petition to go into the question.
That inference is
strengthened hy the fact that under s. lOO(l)(d)(iv) of the
1951 Act the result of the election must have been materially
affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of that Act or of the rules, orders made under that
Act in order that High Court may declare an election to be
void. Non-compliance with the provision~ of s. 19 of the
1950 Act cannot furn:sh a ground for declaring an election
void under that clause''.
-
~
Jn the above context we may also refer to
section 62
of the
G
Representation of the People: Au 1951 (briefly the 1951 Act) which
reads as follows :-
H
"62. ( l ) No person who i~ not, «nd except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who i". for the time being
entered in the electoral roll of any ~onslilu ency shall
be entitled to vote in that constituency.
(I) [1970] J S.C.R. 845.
(2) [ 1971] 2 S.C.R.
611.
(J) [1 974] I S.C.R
548.
t
'
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswami, J.)
215
(2) No person shall vote at an election in any constiA.
tuency if he is subject to any of the disqualifications
referred to in section 16 of the Representation o[ the
People Act, 1950 (48 of 1950)".
It is not disputed thal the persons whose names were recorded in
the electoral roll and participated in the voting were not disquajificd
under section 16 of the 1950 Act.
That being the position it would
have been wrong on the part of the Presiding Officer not to allow the
voters whose names were recorded in the electoral roll of the constituency to participate in the voting, even though their names could have
been earlier at the appropriate time legitimately excluded from the
electoral roll.
These voters are electors within the meaning of section 2 (I) ( e) of the 1951 Act and were entitled to" vote under section
62 of the 1951 Act.
In <i Ucmocrric)r nnd fof ;that matter
in
an election,
perennial
vigilance should be the watch-word for all.
If, therefore,
notwithstanding the provisions of the law, appropriate action was not taken at
the appropriate time, the provisions of the election law which have
got to be construed strictly, must work with indifference to consequences, immediate or mediate.
On the part of the officers also it
\Vill vitalise and invigorate a healthy democratic practice if, charged
with the electoral duties, demanding high probity, they neither exhibit
rank remissness nor accelerated alacrity apt always to breed suspicion
of partisanship.
Mr. Parekh appearing, as amicus curiae. has drawn our attention
to a decision of this Court in Ramii Prasad Singh v. Ram Bi/as Jha &
Four Ors. ( ') to which I was a party. It is not possible to liold that
Ramji decision (supra) is of any aid to coun"sel in his submission in
support of the impugned judgment. This Court in that case referred
to the earliest case on the subject, name1y, B. M. Ramaswamy v. B. M.
Krishnamurthy and Others(') that it "had come to the conclusion
that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in a proceeding in which the validity of the election is questioned".
This Court has
further clearly observed in Ramji's case (supra) as follows :-
"There is a clear distinction between a' challenge to the right
of a voter to be registered in an electoral roll and the
jurisdiction of an authority appointed under the Act to enter
a name in the electoral roll".
B
c
E
F
Mr. Parekh also invited our attention to section 27(2}(e} of 1950
G
Act wherein section 21 of that Act is omitted. He submits that under
proviso to sub'section (2)
of section 21
"if the electoral roll is
not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said
electoral roll shall not thereby be affected". From this he sumbits that
deliberate omission of section 21 in section 27 (2) (e) is very significant
and no finality is intended in the case of electoral roll for a Council
..;
Constituency in Part IV of the 1950 Act.
H
(I) [19771 1 S.C.R. 741.
(2) [19631 3 S.C.R. 479.
A
B
.c
E
·F
,G
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 S.C.R.
We appreciate the ingenuity of the submission.
We arc, however,
unable to accept the submission notwithstanding
the omission of
section 21 in section 27(2)(e) of the 1950 Act.
The proviso to
section 21(2) relates to revision of an electoral roll
and sets at
rest any possible controversy in case there happens to be no revision
of electoral rolls for one reason or other.
The proviso, therefore, has
been advisedly inserted in section 21(2) with a specific purpose of
forestalling a situation.
The same caution is not necessary in the case
of preparation of electoral rolls under section 27 (2), the alterations
whereof are concomitant with statutory transformations of the local
authorities under provisions of the local Acts. If any modicum
of
caution is yet ne.cessary, even that is
preserved by section 23 ( 3)
which is made applicable, in terms, under
section 27 (2) ( e). The
submission of counsel, thus, flies in the face of the scheme and object
of the above provisions.
Thus in a catena of cilse9 this Conrf biS consistently faken the
view that the finality of t.he electoral roll cannot be challenged in a•
,election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the
,'preparation of the electoral roll or if subsequent disqualification had
·taken place and the electoral roll had on that score not been corrected
before the last hour of making nominations.
After that dead line the
electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and no ooe
can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering diSqualification under section 16 of the 1950 Act.
The election could be set aside only on the grounds mentioned i•
section 100 of the 1951 Act. In this case reliance was placed under
section lOO(l)(d)(iii) for invalidating the election on the ground of
reception of void votes.
We have already shown that the electora1
roll containing the particular names of voters was valid and there is,
therefore, no que~tion of reception of any vote which was void.
There
is, thus, no substance in that ground for challenging the election.
It is true, the result is that with a small margin the appellant
landed first as the victor in the election and even the balance might
have tilted in favour of the respondent if the so-called invalid vote.
were to be excluded.
But this uncanny consequence cannot be helped
on the law laid down by this Court and for very good reasons impregnated in the electoral provisions demanding constant awareness
Ott
the part of all and, above ali of the citizenry.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court is clearly wrong
in holding that the electoral roll was illegal or ultra vires with referei;ice
to the particular entries of votes and that on that account the electtoa
was liable to be set aside.
We, therefore, set aside the judgment anti
order of the High Court and restore the election of the appellant to the
U.P. Legislative Council.
The election petition stands dismi~sed
with costs. In the view we have taken it is not necessary to constder
the second question with regard to the point whether the result of
the election of the appellant was materially affected or not.
In the
result the appeal is allowed, but since the respondent has not entered
appearance we will make no order as to costs.
•
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswa1ni, J.)
217
We are thankful to both Mr. Mridul for his well planned submission
A
with considerate brevity and to Mr. Parekh for his able assistance as
~·
amicus curiae on a very short notice from the Court.
'
~·.
We may say at end that this case discloses in an election matter,
the negative attitude of officialdom while Ramii's case (supra) exposed
a lurid instance of an over-zealous positive drive.
P.B.R.
Appeal allowed.
3-'768 SCI;77
B