# Ht·· IlRIJ MOHAN v. SAT PAL

- **Citation:** [1985] 3 S.C.R. 321
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1985-03-13
- **Bench:** S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI, A. Varadarajan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ht-ilrij-mohan-v-sat-pal-8932
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

The Representation of People Act 1951, Section 33 Assembly Ele.c_tionNomination Paper of Candidate-Mitakes-Regarding serial numli_er, part
number, house number-Nomination .paper rejected on scrutiny by Returning~
Officer-Rejection whether valid_:_Mistakes whether of a substantial character.
A·
c
'lhe respondent in the appeal an election, filed an election petition chatD~J
lenging the election of the appellant to the Assembly.
He contended in the
petition that in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from
Jind
constituency one Dog Ram filed nomination paper.
His name was proposed
by Ram Pratap, an elector ~f the constituency.
Dog Ram-Candidate was
registered as an elector at serial No. 177 and house No. 57 in part 39 of the
electoral roll of the constituency whereas the proposer was registered as elector
at serial No. 313 and house No. 6 in part 39 of the same constituency.
The
E,
name and postal address of Dog Ram were correctly given in the nomination
paper but the part of the electoral roll was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by
an inadvertant mistake committed by the person who filed the nomination
paper.
Similarly, in the case of the proposer, the serial number of the elector·
and the number of the constituency were given correctly but the number of his
house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the part of t'he electoral
roll.
At the time of scrutiny no other candidate or proposer objected to the
F -,;
acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer on
his own rejected the nomination paper on the ground that particulars of the :
candidate and the proposer have been wrongly entered in the nominati~n paper.
The appellant contested the election petition contending that the Returning Officer had compared the admittedly inaccurate particulars given in the
nomination paper with those entered in the part of the.voters' list mentioried in
G ~}
the nomination paper and found· them to be incorrect and asked candidate
Dog Ram-to show the names of himself and his proposer in the electoral
roU and that as the canClidate was unable to do so he rejected the nomination
paper and was right' in doing so.
· In the nomination paper the serial numbers in the voters' list of the
candidate and his proposer have been correctly given as 177 and 313 respec..
H''
B
c
E
F
G.
•
t19ssl j s.c.il..
tively but the part numbers have been given wrongly as 57 and 6 respectively
which are their respective house numbers instead of the correct part No. 39,
In the appeal to the High Court the question was as to whether the
nomination paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected.
On the evidence led
by the parties the Single Judge found that the candidate Dog Ram and his
proposer were registered as voters in the constituency and were qualified to
contest the election and propose the candidate respectively.
It was further
found that errors in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and the
proposer in the electoral roll an1 the nomination paper do not constitute
defects of a substantial character as mentioned in the proviso to Section 33(4)
of the Act.
The Single Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 that when he
and the candidate presented the nomination paper the Returning ,Officer told
them that it was in order and held that the Returning Officer had thus tripped
them into .an error and observed that had he told them that there were s0me
discrepancies in the nomination paper they would have either made the corrections then and there and Would have gone more fully prepared to meet objections at the time of the scrutiny.
Accordingly the election petition was allowed
and appellant's election was declared as void.
On the ground that the nomination paper 9f Dog Ram was improperly rejected.
The elected candidate appealed to this Court.
Allowing the Appeal,
HELD : 1.
The Returning Officer in the instant case could not be said
to have improperly rejected the n•JIDination paper of Dog Ram.
[340G}
2.
It is not poss_ible to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 51,320. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

Ht··
IlRIJ MOHAN
v.
SAT PAL
March 13, 1985
(S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J
The Representation of People Act 1951, Section 33 Assembly Ele.c_tionNomination Paper of Candidate-Mitakes-Regarding serial numli_er, part
number, house number-Nomination .paper rejected on scrutiny by Returning~
Officer-Rejection whether valid_:_Mistakes whether of a substantial character.
A·
c
'lhe respondent in the appeal an election, filed an election petition chatD~J
lenging the election of the appellant to the Assembly.
He contended in the
petition that in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from
Jind
constituency one Dog Ram filed nomination paper.
His name was proposed
by Ram Pratap, an elector ~f the constituency.
Dog Ram-Candidate was
registered as an elector at serial No. 177 and house No. 57 in part 39 of the
electoral roll of the constituency whereas the proposer was registered as elector
at serial No. 313 and house No. 6 in part 39 of the same constituency.
The
E,
name and postal address of Dog Ram were correctly given in the nomination
paper but the part of the electoral roll was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by
an inadvertant mistake committed by the person who filed the nomination
paper.
Similarly, in the case of the proposer, the serial number of the elector·
and the number of the constituency were given correctly but the number of his
house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the part of t'he electoral
roll.
At the time of scrutiny no other candidate or proposer objected to the
F -,;
acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer on
his own rejected the nomination paper on the ground that particulars of the :
candidate and the proposer have been wrongly entered in the nominati~n paper.
The appellant contested the election petition contending that the Returning Officer had compared the admittedly inaccurate particulars given in the
nomination paper with those entered in the part of the.voters' list mentioried in
G ~}
the nomination paper and found· them to be incorrect and asked candidate
Dog Ram-to show the names of himself and his proposer in the electoral
roU and that as the canClidate was unable to do so he rejected the nomination
paper and was right' in doing so.
· In the nomination paper the serial numbers in the voters' list of the
candidate and his proposer have been correctly given as 177 and 313 respec..
H''
B
c
E
F
G.
•
t19ssl j s.c.il..
tively but the part numbers have been given wrongly as 57 and 6 respectively
which are their respective house numbers instead of the correct part No. 39,
In the appeal to the High Court the question was as to whether the
nomination paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected.
On the evidence led
by the parties the Single Judge found that the candidate Dog Ram and his
proposer were registered as voters in the constituency and were qualified to
contest the election and propose the candidate respectively.
It was further
found that errors in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and the
proposer in the electoral roll an1 the nomination paper do not constitute
defects of a substantial character as mentioned in the proviso to Section 33(4)
of the Act.
The Single Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 that when he
and the candidate presented the nomination paper the Returning ,Officer told
them that it was in order and held that the Returning Officer had thus tripped
them into .an error and observed that had he told them that there were s0me
discrepancies in the nomination paper they would have either made the corrections then and there and Would have gone more fully prepared to meet objections at the time of the scrutiny.
Accordingly the election petition was allowed
and appellant's election was declared as void.
On the ground that the nomination paper 9f Dog Ram was improperly rejected.
The elected candidate appealed to this Court.
Allowing the Appeal,
HELD : 1.
The Returning Officer in the instant case could not be said
to have improperly rejected the n•JIDination paper of Dog Ram.
[340G}
2.
It is not poss_ible to say generally and in the abstract that all errors
in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and thec;>roposer in the
electoral rolls or nomination papers do not constitute defects of a substantial
character.
They would not be defects of a substantial character only if at the
time of the scrutiny the Returning Officer either by himself with the materials
placed -before him during the scrutiny or with the assistance of the candidate
or his proposer or any other person is able to find out the correct serial number of the candidate and the proposer in the electoral roll.
If that is not the
case, he would be committing a grave error by accepting the nomination paper
without verifying whether the candidate is a voter in that or any other constituency of the State and whether the proposer is a voter in that constituency.
l334G-H ; 335A]
3.
No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was
never put forward in the pleadings.
In the instant case, there is no allegation
in the election petition that there was any assurance by the Returning Officer
at the time of receipt of the nomination paper that there was nothing' wrong
in it.
In tl1e absence of any such allegation in the election· petition, the
evidence of proposer P.W .. 2, which is not even corroborated by the evidence
of any other witness that he and the candidate presented the nomination paper
to the Returning Officer and showed him the voters' list and that- he told them
•
•
hlw MoaAN v. sAf ~Al
then that the nomination paper was in order, is not acceptable. In the circums·
A'
tances the Single Judee was not justified in accepting the evidence of P.W. 2
and holding that the Returning Officer was guilty of tripping the candidate and·
the proposer by any assertion on his part into any one~.be!ieving that there
was nothing wrong in the nominatiOn paper.
[335B ; C-EJ
4.
The candidate and the proposer are always expected to go fully pr~
pared to meet any objection that may be raised by any candidate or even by
Returning· Officer himself suo motu ai the time of the scrutiny and they ·cannot
be e~PCcted to .go any the less prepared merely because the Returning Officer
had received-the nomination paper without raising any' objection.
It is at the
time of scrutiny which is done in the presence of all concerned that the nomination papers cOme ·up fot more detailed c6nsideritio0. at the' handS of the
Returning Officer against whom there is no estoppel in regard to the statutory
duty of scrutiny.
[335F-G)
~ , 5{i)
The evidence of P.W. 1 is larg~ly corroborated by the Returnjng
Offic'er's order.
R.W. 1 is an advocate and was himself a candidate but retired
at a later stage.
He stated that the electoral rolls were lying on the table
~f
B
c
the Returning Officer at the time of the scrutiny.
There is no reason. for not
n
accepting this evidence of R.W. I.
[3360-E)
.
'
P
5(ii)
The electoral rolls were lying on the Returning Officef's table at
the'iime 'or the scrutiny and therefore, there would have ·been no necessity for
nog·Raffi and P.W. 2 to ask the Returning Offi~er to give them the electoral
roll relating to their village for clearing his doubt.
The evidence of P.W. 2
is therefore not acceptable.
[336F]
S(iii).
The evidence of P .W .3 that the Returning Officer did not ask
Dog Ram to show the names of himself and his pr6poser in the electoral roll
is inconsistent with the allegations in the election petition as also. the evidence
of P.W. 2 that the Returning Officer said so. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3
is not accept<i:ble.
The evidence of R.W. 1 is accepted. The Returning Officer
- fourid O.isctepancY in the names, serial number and part number mentioned in
tlie nominatiort ' paper on the one hand and those found in the electora1 ~oil
with reference to those nu1nbers on the other and that on account of 'his inability to ascertain with the particulars made available before him wheiher th~
candidate Do~ Raffi and his proposer P.W. 2 weie"electorS i~ the
collstitu~ncy
he asked the candidate Dog Ram to Point out the names of himself and nis
.proposer in ·t~e electofal roll to satisfy him that they are electors in the
crinstituency and that as he was unable to do so, he rejected the nomination
paper by his order Ex. P.W. l/B.
[337G-H ; 338A]
• Hira Singh Pal v. Madan Lal [1968) 2 SCR 778, Ram Awadesh Singh v
Sumztra Devi & Ors (1972] 2 S.C.R. 674 and Viveka Nand Giri v. Nawal
Kishore Sahi A.LR. 1984 S.C. 856 : not applicable.
E
G
H
A
[1985] 3 S.c.R..
CrvrL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2650 of1984
Appeal U/s 116 A of.the R.P. Act 1951 from the Judgment
and Order dt. 30.5.84 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
B
at Chandigarh in E.P. No. 7 of 1982.
D.
E
F
G
H.L. Sibal, Kapil Sibal. Mrs. Madhu Tewatia Singh and N.M;
Pop/i for the Appellant.
S.N.'Kacker and Ravinder Bana for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VARADARJAN. J. This appeal by the respodent in Election petition
No. 7 of 1982 on the file of the Punjab and Harydna High Court is
directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge declaring
the appellant's election from the Jind constituency of the Haryana
Legislative Assembly as void on the ground that the nomination
paper of a candidate Dog Ram was improperly rejected. The last
date for filing nomination papers was 24.4.1982, and in the scrutiny
made on 26.4.1982 nomination papers of two candidates including
Dog Ram were rejected by the Returning Officer. The principal
contest was between one Mange Ram, a Congress (I) candidate
and the appellant, an independent candidate who had been set up
by the Lok Dal party. The polling was on 19.5.1982 and after the
counting was made on 20.5.1982 the appellant was declared elected
from the Jind constituency.
·
The election petition was filed by the respondent Sat Pal, an
elector in the Jind constituency. His case in the election was that
Dog Ram was registered as an elector at Serial No. 177 and house
No. 57 in part 39 of the electoral roll of the Jind constituency.
Ram Partap who proposed Dog Ram as a candidate, was registered
as elector at Serial No. 313 and house No. 6 in part 39 of the same
constituency. The name of Dog Ram and his postal address
were correctly given in the nomination paper. But the part of
the electoral roll was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by an inadvertant mistake committed by the person who filled the nomination
paper.
Similarly, in the case of the proposer Ram Partap, the
serial number of the elector and the number of the constituency
were given correctly but the number of his house was wrongly entered
hlU.i MOHAN v. SAT PAL (Varadara)an, i.)
in the column meant for the part of the electoral roll. These
inaccuracies in the nomination paper were technical in nature and
should have been rectified by the Returning Officer at the time of
scrutiny. No oJher candidate or proposer objected to the acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer
on his own rejeeted the nomination paper by the following order :
"Particulars of the candidate and the proposer have been
wrongly entered in the nomination paper. The candidate
who is present in person failed to show me the voters'
list where bis and the proposer's names are entered. Hence
rejected."
The appellant contested the election petition contending that the
Returning ;officer compared the admittedly inaccurate 'particulars
given in the nomination paper with those entered in the part onhe
voters' list mentioned in the nomination paper and found them to be
A
B
c
incorrect and asked Dog Ram to show the names of himself
D:
· and his proposer Ram Partap in the electoral rolls and that as the
candidate was unable to do so he rejected the nomination paper and
was right in doing so.
In the first part of the nomination paper, Annexure R-6 Ram
Partap, P.W. 2 has stated thus under his signature:
"I nominate as a candidate for election to the Legislative
Assembly from the 48 Jind constitue~·t assembly ;
Candidate's name
Postal Address
Dog Ram s/o Mohan Lal
Village A mar Heri, Post Office
Ahirka (Jind)
His name is entered at SI. No. I 77 in Part No. 57 of the electoral roll for the 48 Jind Assembly Constituency.
My name is Ram Partap and it is entered at SI: No. 313 in
part No. 6 of the electoral roll for the 48 Jind assembly
Constituency.''
In Part No. 39 of the voters' list relating to Amar Heri village,
E
G
Dog Ram is entered at SI. No. J 77 and House No. 57 and Ram
R
A
B
c
D
E
G'
11
t198513 s.c.tt.
Partap, P.W. 2 is entered at SI. No. 313 and house number 6.
Thus it is seen that in the nomination paper, Serial Nos. of -Dog
Ram and Ram Partap, P. W. 2 have been correctly given as 177 and
313 respectively, but the part numbers have been given wrongly as
57 and 6 respectively which are their respective house numbers
instead of the correct part No. 39.
The learned Single Judge who tried the election petition framed
the issue as to whether the nomination paper of Dog Ram was
improperly rejected.
On the side of the respondent three witnesses were examined 'f
and they are : the election Kanungo Jai Singh, P.W. 1 the proposer
-'f
Ram Pratap P.W. 2 and the Congress \I) candidate Mange Ram,
P.W. 3. The appellant relied upon the evidence of bis sole witness
Guiab Singh, R.W.1.
P.W. 1 bas stated in his evidence that Dog Ram son of Mohan
Lal was registered as voter at SI. No. 177 in house No. 57 and that
the proposer Ram Partap, P.W. 2 was registered as votor at SI. No.
313 in part 39 of the electoral roll of Amar Heri village. In his cross
examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that in Jind constituency there
were 77000 voters ontered in 97 parts of the electoral roll and that
>
the voter at SI. No. 177 in part No. 57 is one Krishan son of Ami Lal
of Jalalpura Khurd village while the voter at SJ. No. 313 in Part No.
6 is one Premo wife of Satbir of Barsana village.
P.W. 2 has stated
in his evidence that he and Dog Ram presented the nomination
paper to the Returning Officer on 24.4.1982 ·and he told them that
it was in order and that at the time of the scrutiny he told them
that there were some mistakes in the nomination paper. He has~
further .stated that he and Dog Ram volunteered to show the actual
•
voter>' list but he declined to have a look at the voters' list relating
into Amar Heri village and insisted that the particulars mentioned
in the nomination paper alone could be seen by him. P.W. 3 has
stated in his evidence that nobody raised any objection to the
nomination paper filed by Dog Ram but the Returning Officer himself raised an objection saying that the particulars are not properly
filled in. He has further stated that Dog Ram and P.W. 2 were
present at that time and they told the Returning Officer that if the
.,..._
voters' list was supplied to them they would be in a position to
show the correct particulars and he did not comply with their request.
On the other hand, R.W. 1 who had filed a recrimination petition
•
'
BRIJ MC?HAN v. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, J.)
3l7
against Mange Ram in Elcetion Petition No. 8 of 1982, has stated
in his evidence that the Returning Officer asked Dog Ram to
show the relevant part and the serial number in the voters' list where
his. name is entered and Dog Ram failed to do so ·though the
voters' list was lying on the Returning Officer's table at
that
time.and an opportunity was given to Dog Ram ,for seeing the
same and that the Returning Officer, therefore, rejected the nomination paper of Dog Ram after raising an objection suo motu.
The learned Single Juge found that the candidate Dog Ram
and the proposer Ram Partap were registered as voters in the -Jind
constituency and were qualified to contest in the election and
propose the ·candidate respectively.
This fact was not disputed
before the learned Ju'dge. He found that errors in regard to electoral
roll numbers of the candidate. and the proposer in the electoral rolls
and the nominati0n paper do not constitute defects of a substantial
character as mentioned in the proviso to s. 33(4) of the Representation ·of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which
reads~
"33(4) On the presentation of a nomination paper, the
returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names and
electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer as
.entered in the nomination paper are- the same as those
entered in the electoral rolls:
Provided that on misnomer or inaccurate description or
clerical, technical or printing error in- regard to the name
of the ·candidate or
his proposer or any other person,
or in regard to any place mentioned in the electoral
roll or the nomination paper and no clerical, technical or
printing error in regard to the electoral roll numbers of
any such person in the electoral roll or the nomination
paper, shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll
·or the nomination paper· with respect to such person or
place in any case where the description in regard to the
name of the person or place is ·such as to be commonly
understood ; .and the returning officer shall permit any such
misnomer, inaccurate description or clerical, . technical ot
printing error to be corrected and where necessary, direct
that any such misnomer, inaccurate description, clerical,
_technical or printing error in the el_ectora! roll or ill
tl\~
· ppmin~tiQP paper ~11~1\ \]~ oyej·loo~eq",
B
.c
E
F
G
B
<i!··
E
E
G.
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 S.C.J\,
Though there is no allegation in the election petition that the
Returning Officer assured the candidate Dog Ram and the proposer
Ram Partap, P.W. 2 that the nomination paper was in order, the
learned Single Judge accepted evidence of P.W. 2 that when he and
the candidate Dog Ram presented the nomination
paper on
24.4.1982, the Returning Officer told them that it was in order, and he
held that the Returning Officer had thus tripped them into an error
and observed that had he told them that there were some discrepancies in the nomination paper they would have either made the
corrections then and there or would have gone more fully prepared
to meet objections at the time of scrutiny. In that view he bas
observed in his judgment :
"If an act or omission on his part is shown to have tripped into an error an otherwise competent person to offer
himself as a candidate, who inspite of being desirous of
fighting
election is unable to do so because of the
error committed by
the Returning Officer then
such
a candidate will be allowed to urge that because of the noncompliance by the Returning Officer with the provisions of
the Act the people of
the constituency
have not
been able to make a choice in accordance with law. In my
conside.red opinion it would be a fit case to hold that the
result of the election has been materially affected. This
in effect is the law and spirit of s. JOO(!) (d) (iv) of the Act.
The scrutiny was held in Jind which is a district town and
the Returning Officer is normally expected to have the assistance of the election staff including the Election Kanungo at
the time of the scrutiny. If he had put a few questions to
Dog Ram and Ram Partap, P.W. 2 about their residence and
numbers of their house, the Kanungo would have at once
brought out the relevant electoral rolls containing the names
of these two persons. For reasons aforementioned I am of
the opinion that the nomination
paper of Dog Ram
'candidate had been wrongly rejected",
He accordingly allowed the election petition
with
costs
assessed at Rs. 2500 and declared the appellant's election as void.
The only issue framed by the learned Single Judge as stated
earlier is: '.'Whether the nomination paper of Sbri Dog Ram contesJJ,
i n~ c~m!ic!~te has l>\ien improperly rejected". froll! thi§ ii \lpes 11ot
+-
-I -
--+
DRIJ MOHAN v. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, j.)
329
fo1Iow .as. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearipg for the appellant
<;ontends, that the first respondent had not ch~lleqged the rejectfon
oLthe_particulars in the nomination paper so far as they relate to the
pr~poser Ram Partap, P.W.2 for they.too form .an integral part of
.the nomination paper and the consequence would be the same,
namely, rejection of the nomination paper of the candidate even if it
.be forthe defect in. the particulars relating to the proposer.
According to -r. 4 of the Conduc.t of Election Rules, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') every nomination paper presented under sub-s. (I) of s. 33 of the Act may be completed in such
one of the· forms 2A to 2E as may be appropriate. Section. 33( I)
relating to representation of nomination papers and requirements for
a valid. nomination says that the nomination.paper shall be completed
in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and an elector. of
the constituency. It is clear from this sub-section that the proposer
of the candidate must be elector of the constituency,
Section 32 of
the Act relating -$O nomination of a candidate for election says that
any· persori may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a
seat if be is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions
of the Constitution ·and the Act or under the provisions of the
Government of Union Territories Act; 196}, as the case may he.
Section 5 of the Act relating to qualifications for membership. of a
Legislative Assembly says that "a person shall not be qualified to he
c~ose_n to fill a seat in the Legislaiive Assembly of a State' unldss -:---
. --. ._: (a) in the case of a seat reserved.for the Scheduled Castes
or for .the Scheduled Tribes of that State, be is a member of any of those castes or of those tribes, as the case
may he, and is an elector for any A'sembly Consti·
tuency in that State ;
(b) in the case of a seat reserved for an autonomous .
district of Assam, be is a member of a. Scheduled Tribe
.of any autonomous district and is an elector for the
A
B
c
E
F
Assembly Constituency in which such seat or any other
G
seat is reserved for that district ; and
(c) in the case of any other seat, be is an elector for any
·Assembly Constituency in tbe·State".
· · .
We are corcerr ed in the pmert case with clause le) of s. 5 of
the A~t.
Th~r~fpre, the canoidate PO!Dinated inust lie an ~l~ctor for
11
' .
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 S.C.!l.
A
any Assembly Constituency in the State concerned. Form 2B is the
appropriate form in the present case. It is found at page 239 of the
Manual of Election Law corrected upto December 1982 .. It 'ccinsists
of four parts, the first relating to the candidate and the proposer,
the second relating to delivery of the nomination paper to the
Returning Officer, the third relating to the decision of the Returning
-.I..
B
Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination paper and the.fourth
relating to the receipt of the nomination paper and notice of scru·
D
F
G
tiny. The first part has to be signed by the candid.ate and the
proposer and the other three parts have fo be signed by the Return-
~
ip,g_ Officer. The first part is extracted for easy reference :
r-
"Election to the Legislative Assembly of-----State
I nominate as a candidate for election to the Legislative
Assembly from the------assembly constituency.
Candidate's name---------- - ------------
His postal address----- - -----------------
His name is entered at S. No.------------in part
No.- --------of the electoral roll for the---·----
assembly constituency.
My name is----'-----------and it is entered at
S. No. --~----------in Part No.-------..:... __
of the electoral roll for the --------assembly constituency.
Date ---------
(Signature of proposer)
-:)..~ " .
···························································································
, I, the above-mentioned candiate assent to this nomination and
hereby declare -
•')
·r
··(a) 'that I have completed-- ------years of age;
(b) that I am set up at this election by the -----party ;
: (c) .that the symbols I have chosen are, in order of referenc~
+
(i) ---------(ii) -~-,,-o·
-..,-..,....,....=~
~μ\l \iii) ----.,.--:---c-=--c:
,
J
.~.
BRIJ MOHAN 1'. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, J.)
3~\
I further declare that I am a member of the---------
A
caste/tribe which is a scheduled caste/tribe·of the State of------
in relation to--- - ---- --(area) in that State.
Date --------
(Signature of candidate)
Tn the first part the proposer must mention the name of the
candidate and his own name ~nd the serial numbers and part numbers
of the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency concerned where
the name of the candidate and bis own name are entered and he is
also required to furnish the postal address of the candidate. It may
be stated that there is no specific provision in the Rules for furnishing the postal address of the candidate in the nomination paper
though in Form 2B it is required to be given by the proposer. It is
obvious that the serial number and the part number of the electoral
rolls of the constituency concerned relating to a candidate and the
proposer are required to be given in the nomination form in order
to enable the Returning ·officer to verify whether the candidate and
the proposer are registered as electors and qualified to be nominated
as a candidate and to propose.the c.~ndidate as a candidate for filling
a seat in the Legislative Asseμibly.
Rule 2(f) of the Rules says that
the "Electoral roll number of a person means; (i) the serial number
of the entry in the electoral roll in respect of tba.t person ; (ii) the
serial number of the part of the electoral roll in which such entry
occurs and (iii) the name of the const.ituency to which the electoral
roll relates." These particulars have to be furnished in the nomination paper.
Section 33(4) of the Act says; "On the presentation of a nomi'
nation paper, the returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names
and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and bis proposer as
entered in the nomination paper are the same as those·entered in the
electoral rolls :
Provided that no misnomer or "inaccurate description .or
B
c
D
E
F
clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the name of
G
. the candidate. or his proposer or any other person, or in
regard to any place· mentioned in the electoral roll or the
nomination paper and no clerical, technical or printing error
in regard to the ·electoral roll numbers of any such person
in the electoral roll or the nomination paper, shall affect the
f~ll opera\jgn '?f t!ie ~lector~l r<?!I or \h~ pomin?tiop paper
ff
B
c
f(
D
E
F
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1985) 3 S.C.R.
.w.ith respect to such person or place in any case where the
<lescription in regard to the name of the person or place is
such as to be commonly understood ; and the returning
. office.r shall permit any such misnomer or inaccurate description or cteric~J, te~hnical or printing error to be corrected
. and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer,
inaccurate description, clerical, technical or printing error
. in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper shall be
overlooked."
The Hand Book for Returning Officer, issued by the Election
Commission of India, says what the Returning O:ficer and the Specified Assistant Returning Officer should do as each nomination paper
·is filed.
It says· that the Returning Officer or Specified Assistant
Returning Officer js not to hold a formal scrutiny of any nomination
paper at this stage. If the candidate is an elector in the constituency
conc.erned, the Returning Officer or the Specified Assistant Returning
Officer should compare the entries in the nomination papers with the
entries in the electoral roll relating to the serial number and the.
name of the candidate and the proposer. If he comes from any other
constituency, the officer should compare the entries in the nomination paper with th entrie' relating to the candidate's name 'in the
electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a
certified .copy of .such entry. The candidate is required by law to
produce before the officer such electoral roll or relevant part thereof
or a certified copy of the relevant entries thereof as per s. 33(5) of
the Act.
Legally, the
responsibility for producing documentary
evidence of registration as elector in a different constituency rests
entirely on the candidate. The instruction reiterates what is contained
iry .the .. proviso to s. 33(4) of the Act and further states that the points
which the Returning Officer or Specified Assistant Returning Officer
are required · by s. 33(4) to be disposed of should be invariably disposed of at time of the receipt of the nomination paper and that it
wiJI be improper for the officer at the time of scrutiny to reject the
nomination paper for defects which could have been cured at the
earlier stage of presentation of the nomination paper. It was con·r
ceded by Mr. Kacker, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent, that the enquiry at the stage of receipt of nomination
paper is ·what he called a peripheral one and that no legal conse- \
quence.flow·from the omission on the part of the Returning Officer',
or Specl6ed Assistant Returning Officer to carry out hi§ r~spQll§ibility '
Bl th~ stai:e pf receipt pf the nominMion paper,
•
•
-+
BRIJ MOHAN v. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, J.)
33j
Section 36 of the Act relating to scrutiny of nomination paper
A
reads:
"36(1) O.i the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations
under section 3LJ, the candidates, their election agents, one
proposer of each candidate, and one other person duly
authorized in writing by each candidate, but no other person, may attend at such time and place as the returning
officer may appoint ;
and the returning officer shall give them all reasonable
facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candi·
dates which have been delivered.within the time and in the
manner laid down in section 33.
(2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination
papers and shall decide all objections which may be made
B
c
to any nomination and may either on such objection or on
n
pis own rnotion, after such s·ummary inquiry, if any, as he
thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the
following grounds :
(a) · that on the date fixed for the scurtiny of n0minations
the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified
for· being
chosen to fill the seat under any of the
following provisions that may be applicable, namely :-
Articles 84,102,173 and 191, Part II of this Act and
section 4 and 17 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 ;
(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the
provisions of section 33 or section 34 ·; or
·
(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on
nomination paper is not genuine:
"
...................... '
Sub-section 6 of s. 36 requires that the Returning Officer shall
endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting
the same and says that if .the nominatfon paper is rejected he shall
r~9oril it1 writing a· brief slatemep\ 9f his reftSops for sll~b rejectio11,
E
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
G ...
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985) 3 S.C,R.
In tbe present case the proposer P.W.2 had mentioned the
names of himself and the candidate Dog Ram correctly in the nomination paper.
He had also mentioned their serial numbers as I 77
and 3 J 3 which would tally with their names if the correct part
No. 39 of the electoral roll had been mentioned in the nomination
paper. But, unfortunately instead of entering that correct part No. 39
in the nomination paper, P.W.2, who claims to have got the nomination paper filled in by an Advocate of Jind whose name he does
not know, had mentioned the part No. as 57 in regard to the candidate Dog Ram and as 6 in regard to himself which are really their
house numbers. The Returning Officer bas, therefore, passed the
order, Ex. P.W.1/R, extracted earlier in this judgment, rejecting the
nomination paper. What happened before be passed that order is
established by the evidence which would be considered hereafter.
Before we proceed to consider the evidence we wish to state
that the. learned Single judge has been
stayed by two things in
reaching the conclusion that the rejection of the nomination paper
of Dog Ram was improper. They are: (I) that errors in regard to
electoral roll numbers of the candidate and the proposer in the
electoral rolls or the nomination papers do not constitute defects of
a substantial character as noted in the proviso to s. 33 (4) of the
Act and (2) that the Returning Officer had told the candidate Dog
Ram and the proposer P.W.2 when the nomination paper was
presented, that it was alright and thus tripped them into an error,
for had he told them at that time that there were some discrepancies in the nomination paper in regard to electoral roll numbers they
would have either made the corrections ther. and there or would
have gone more fully prepared to meet objections at the time of
scrutiny. The serial numbers and part numbers mentioned in the
nomination paper relate to Ami Lal of Jalalpura Khurd and Premo
wife of Satbir of Barsana village and not to the candidate Dog Ram
and the proposer P.W.2. It is not possible to say generally and in the
abstract that all errors in regard lo electoral roll numbers of the
candidate and the proposer in the electoral rolls or nomination
paper do not constitute defects of a substantial charcter. They would
not be defects of a substantial character only if at the time of the
scrutiny the Returning Officer either by himself with the materials
placed before him during the scrutiny or with the assistance of the
candidate or his proposer or any other person is able to find out
t.he correct serial number of tbe candidate and the proposer by
r~f~f~n~~ \g t\10 c()rre9\ p~rt nu!11\Jer 9f the ~le•tor~l f91!, If t~il\ i§
+
+
~b.1l MoiiAN v. SA1' !'At (Varadara)an, J)
!'lot the case, he \Vould be commiting a grave error by accepting the
nomination paper without verifying whether tlle candidate is a voter
in that or any other constituency of tlie ·State and whether the .
proposer is a voter in that comtituency. As regards the tripping by
the Returning Officer we find that there is no allegation in the
election petition that there was. any assurance by the Returning·
Officer at the time of receipt of the nomination paper that there was
nothing wrong in it. Even according to Mr. Kacker the enquiry by
the Returning Officer at the time of delivery of the nomination paper
is only a peripheral enquiry in which the Returning Officer in the
present case seems to have been satisfied by finding two numbers
each given in regard to the candidate and the proposer that they
were the serial number and part number of the electoral roll which
the proposer was hound to give correctly in regard to the candidate
and himself in the nomination paper. In the absence of any such
allegation of tripping in the election petition we think that the
evidence of the proposer P;W.2 which is not even corroborated by the'
evidence of any other witness that he and the candidate presented the
nomination paper to the Returning Officer and showed him the
voters' list and that he told them then that the nomination paper was
in order. This Court bas held ·over and over again that no amount
of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put
forward in the pleadings. In these circumstances we think that the
learned Single Judge was· not justified in accepting the evidence of
P.W.2 and holding that the Retunring Officer was guilty of tripping
the candidate and the proposer by any as<enion on his part into
any believing that there was nothing wrong in the nomination paper .
.)'the candidate and the proposer are always expected to go fully
prepared to meet any objection that may be raised by any candidate
o'r even by the Returning Officer himself suo motu at the time of the
scrutiny and they cannot be expected .to go any the Jess
prep~re\I
merely because the Returning Officer had received the nomination
paper without raising any objection. It is at the tirne of scrutiny
which is done in the presence of all concerned that the nomination
papers come up for more detailed consideration at the hands of the
Returning ·officer against whorn thereis no estoppel in regard to the
statutory duty of scrutiny.
P. W. I has deposed merely about the concerned serial 'numbers 177 and 313 and part numbers 6, 39 .and 57 of the electoral
roll. The proposer P.W.2 has stated in bis evidence that when the
Returning Officer told him and his candidate Do,g Ram at the time
.B
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
t19851 3 s.c ft,
of· the scrutiny that there was some mistake in filling the nomination paper, both of them volunteered to show the actual entry in
the electoral roll of Amar Heri village but he declined to have a
look at it and insisted that the particulars mentioned in the nomination paper alone· could be seen by him.
The Returning Officer who
had to verify the serial numbers and part numbers etc. given in
the nomination paper with reference to the entries in the electoral
roll could have said that there were mistakes in the nomination
paper only after having looked into the electoral roll and he would.
not have stated that he would see only the numbers mentioned in
the nomination paper. In his cross-examination P.W.2 has admitted
that the Returning Officer told them at the time of the scrutiny
that they should show him their names in the electoral roll.
But
he has denied that Dog Ram replied that he was not in a position
to point out his name or bis own name in the electoral roll. He
bas stated that on the other hand they asked the Returning Officer
to give them the electoral roll relating to Amar Heri village and be
declined to do so and that they did not protest against that highhandedness of the Returning Officer .. The Returning Officer must
have bad the electoral rolls before him at the time of the scrutiny
which could not be done without the electroal rolls before him.
R.W.I, an Advocate who was himself a candidate and had retired
at a later stage, has stated in bis evidence that the electorat rolls
were lying on the table of the Returning Officer at the time. of the
scrntiny. There is no reason for not accepting this evidenee of
R.W.J. The electoral rolls were lying on the Returning Officer's
table at the time of the scrutiny and, therefore, there would have
been no necessity for the candidate ·Dog Ram and P. W. 2 to ask
the Returning Officer to give them the electoral roll relating to Amar
Heri village for clearing his doubt. Therefore, we are unable to
accept this evidence of P.W.2. P.W. 3. also has stated in his evidence
that both Dog Ram and P.W.2 told the Returning Officer when he
raised obj"'tion sue motu at the time of the scrutiny that they
filled in the nomination papers after looking at the particulars in
the electoral rolls relating to Amar Heri village and that if the
electoral roll of th;t village was given to them they wou IJ be in a
position to show him . the correct particulars, but he declined to
oblige them and insisted that. they should .show that the serial number and part number mentioned in the nomination paper tally.
He
bas stated that he too told the Returning Officer that he should
give them the facility of showing the particulars in the electoral
roll of Amer Heri village but he declined to comply with hi•
+
ilru1 MOHAN v SAt PAL (Varadara}an, J)
-.
request ~nd stated that he would see only the serial nu:i;b~r.aild
the part mentioned in the nomination p~per. He has stated ,that he
was interested in the acceptance of the nomination paper· of Dog
Ram becauce he belongi to ruul p~ri and was the Lambardar <?f
his village. However, he has almittedly not made any report to
anyone. about the alleged high-handedness _of th~ Returning iOflicer
though ·he was a Minister of the State Government at. that tiri:ie a~d
Dog Ram is stated to have told him that the Returning Officer was not
acting fairly.