# IDRA SINGH PAL v. MADAN LAL January 15, "1968

- **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 778
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1112 of 1967
- **Bench:** M. ffIDAYATULLAH, K. S. Hedge
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/idra-singh-pal-v-madan-lal-january-15-1968-4208
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Repreurrtatwrr of the People Act. 1951, s.•. 36 and JOO-Clerical muuzJ.e
in
nomination pcpers-Duty of Returning Officer-NomituJtion
,aper• must not be lightly re;ected even in the case of dummy candidate
~Election to be set a.Ide if papers of such a candidate wrongly rejected.
The rC5pondent filed two nomination papers for election to the I.egis·
lative Assembly from a constituency in Himachal Pradesh in the 1967
general election. Both bis nomination papers were rejected at the scrutiny.
1l>e first nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the proposer's
name wa< wrongly mentioned as being at serial No. 380 of Pan 13 of the
l!lectoral Roll of the constituency whereas it was actually at serial No. 380
of Pan 23 of the Roll. The oce-0nd nomination paper was rejected on the
lfound that the respondent was shown ~~ the elector at Serial No. 504
ot Pan 2 of 9-Arki Assembly constituency but really his name was found
at serial No. 504 of Pan 12 of that constituency. At the election subsequently held the appellant was the winning candidate. The respondent
filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election on the ground
that his (the respondent's) nomination papers had been wrongly rejected.
The High Coun allowed the petition whereupon, by special
leave,
the
appellant came to this Coun. It was ur~d on behalf of the appellant,
i11trr alia, that the respondent was only a dummy candidate who was not
e'Ven pr"'5cnt at the time of tl\e scrutiny and had filed the petition only
hecausc the candidate representing his pany had been defeated.
HELD : The respondent's nomination papers were wroogly rejected in
a manner impermissible under s. 36 of the Representation er the People
Act and the election must be set aside under s. 100 of the Act. [785 A]
It may be that while scrutinising the first nomination paper the Returning Officer had no material before him II> find out whether the proposer
of the candidate was really an elector in the constituency or not but in
the second nomination paper the proposer's name as well as place in the
electoral roll was correctly mentioned.
It was improper on the part of
the Returning Officer to have rcjecled the second nomination paper merely
on the ground that the pan of the electoral roll in which the respondent'•
name was recorded was wrongly mentioned because the correct number of
the electoral rolt was mentioned in the fir~t nomination paper.
All the
required information was hcforc the Returning Officer and the mistake
was onlv clerical.
Obviously he rejected the nomination paper for the
reason that the respondent was a dummy candidate but that was not a
matter for him to decide. [784 D-Hl

## Text

IDRA SINGH PAL
v.
MADAN LAL
January 15, "1968
[M. ffIDAYATULLAH AND K. S. HEDGE, JJ.]
Repreurrtatwrr of the People Act. 1951, s.•. 36 and JOO-Clerical muuzJ.e
in
nomination pcpers-Duty of Returning Officer-NomituJtion
,aper• must not be lightly re;ected even in the case of dummy candidate
~Election to be set a.Ide if papers of such a candidate wrongly rejected.
The rC5pondent filed two nomination papers for election to the I.egis·
lative Assembly from a constituency in Himachal Pradesh in the 1967
general election. Both bis nomination papers were rejected at the scrutiny.
1l>e first nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the proposer's
name wa< wrongly mentioned as being at serial No. 380 of Pan 13 of the
l!lectoral Roll of the constituency whereas it was actually at serial No. 380
of Pan 23 of the Roll. The oce-0nd nomination paper was rejected on the
lfound that the respondent was shown ~~ the elector at Serial No. 504
ot Pan 2 of 9-Arki Assembly constituency but really his name was found
at serial No. 504 of Pan 12 of that constituency. At the election subsequently held the appellant was the winning candidate. The respondent
filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election on the ground
that his (the respondent's) nomination papers had been wrongly rejected.
The High Coun allowed the petition whereupon, by special
leave,
the
appellant came to this Coun. It was ur~d on behalf of the appellant,
i11trr alia, that the respondent was only a dummy candidate who was not
e'Ven pr"'5cnt at the time of tl\e scrutiny and had filed the petition only
hecausc the candidate representing his pany had been defeated.
HELD : The respondent's nomination papers were wroogly rejected in
a manner impermissible under s. 36 of the Representation er the People
Act and the election must be set aside under s. 100 of the Act. [785 A]
It may be that while scrutinising the first nomination paper the Returning Officer had no material before him II> find out whether the proposer
of the candidate was really an elector in the constituency or not but in
the second nomination paper the proposer's name as well as place in the
electoral roll was correctly mentioned.
It was improper on the part of
the Returning Officer to have rcjecled the second nomination paper merely
on the ground that the pan of the electoral roll in which the respondent'•
name was recorded was wrongly mentioned because the correct number of
the electoral rolt was mentioned in the fir~t nomination paper.
All the
required information was hcforc the Returning Officer and the mistake
was onlv clerical.
Obviously he rejected the nomination paper for the
reason that the respondent was a dummy candidate but that was not a
matter for him to decide. [784 D-Hl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1112 of
1967.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act
H
1951 from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1967 of the
Delhi High Court, Himachal Bench at Simla in .C.O.P. (Election)
Petition No. 3 of 1967.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HIRA SINGH v. MADAN LAL (Hegde, J.)
779
H. R. Gokha/e, S. K. Khanna; S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,
for the appellant.
R. K. Garg, Naunit Lal and· B. P. Singh, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J,.
This appeal is directed against the order of the
High Court of ·oelhi and Himachal Pradesh in Election Petition
No. 3 of 1967. That petition
related to the election to the
Hirn0chal Pradesh Legislative Assembly during the last General
Election, from 9-Arki Assembly Constituency.
The only ground taken in the petition was whether the nomiaation of the respondent was improperly rejected.
The respondent had filed his nomination for the election in question on January 20, 1967. He had filed two nomination papers. The scrutiny took place on January 21, 1967. At the time of the scrutiny,
the respondent was not present; his Pomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. The election took place in February, 1967. The two contesting candidates were the appellant and
Hari Das the Congress nominee. The appellant succeeded by a
margin of about 8000 votes.
After the results of the election
were announced, the respondent filed an election petition with
which we are now concerned.
The only ground taken in the election petition as· mentioned
earlier was that his nomination papers were improperly rejected.
In rejecting the nomination papers of the respondent, the Returning Officer observed as follows :
'Shri Madan Lal, resident of Village Parchech, P.O.
Ghanahatti District Mahasu filed two nomination papers
before me on 20th January, 1967 which bear serial Nos.
5 and 6. According to the entry in the nomination paper
serial No. 5 Shri Anant Ram proposer has been shown
to be entered at serial No. 383 of 13 of the electoral
rolls for 9-Arki Assembly
Constituency.
From the
comparison with the nnal copy of electoral rolls for this
constituency, at serial No. 383 of part 13 the name of
Shrimati Phullu wife of Shri Nirjal Singh has been entered.
As such this entry in this nomination paper is
wrong.
As regards nvmination paper bearing serial No. 6
the candidate has shown his name to be entered at serial
No. 504 of part 2 of the Electoral rolls for 9-Arki
Assembly Constituency.
From the
comparison with
the aforesaid entry in the final copy of the electoral rolls
at the aforesaid serial No. of the aforesaid part one
Shrimati Darshnoo wife of Shri Ghanaya Ram has been
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 SC.R
entered. Hence this entry in the nomination paper bearing serial No. 6 is incorrect.
At the time of scrutiny neither Shri Madan Lal nor
his proposer or election agent nor any one authorised on
his behalf was present so that he could be given an opportunity for correcting these entries.
This candidate
while presenting his nomination papers claimed to be
th~ substitute candidate of the lndian National Congress
who have put up Shri Hari Dass as their only candidate.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be
ascertained whether Shri Madan Lal is an elector in any
Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh or that
his proposer Shri Anant Ram is an elector in the 9-Arki
Assembly Constituency.
Shri M. R. Gupta. Advooate
the person authorised on behalf of Shri Hari Dass was
informed to convey to Shri Madan Lal that he can approach me any time upto 3.00 p.m. today for correcting
these entries. Shri Madan Lal has not turned up as yet.
It is now I 5 minutes past 3.00 p.m.
Jn these circumstances there is no alternative hut' to
reject both these nomination papers as the candidate
does not seem to be interested in correcting these entries
and filing proper and valid nomination papers.
These
orders arc passed ex-parte since Shri Madan Lal has not
cared co turn up.
Announced.
Sd/- R. C. Gupta. 21-1-1967.
Returning Officer.
A.
•
c
D
E
9-Arki Assembly Constituency."
F
The two nominations filed by the respondent arc marked as
annexures A and B. They read as follows :
Form 2-B
(See rule 4)
ANNEXURE 'A'
Nomination paper.
Election to the Lrgi,lativc Assembly of Union territory of Himachal Pradesh (State).
I. Nomination as candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly from the 9-Arki assembly constituency.
~·
G
H
•
A
B
lilRA SINGH V. MADAN LAL (Hegde, /.)
Candidate's name
His postal address.
Madan Lal
Village Parhech P.O. Ghanahatti. District, Mahasu.
His name is entered at serial No. 504 of the Electoral Roll for the 9-Arki
in part No. 12.
Assembly Constituency
My name is_Anant Ram and it is in Part No. 13
entered at serial No. 380
Electoral Roll
of the Assembly Constituency
for the 9-Arki
Date: 20-1-1967.
781
C
Sd./- Anant Ram
Signature of Proposer.
''Decision of Returning Officer accepting or rejecting the Nomination paper.
I have examined this nomination paper in accordD
ance with section 36 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, and decide as foll()WS : Rejected.
E
F
G
H
Shri Anant Ram proposer is not entered at SI. No.
380 of Part No. 13 of the Electoral Roll of 9-Arki
Assembly constituency. Despite opportunity this entry
has not been ·corrected.
Date: 21-1-1967.
Sd./ R. C. Gupta 21-1-1967
Returning Officer
3-15 P.M., 9-Arki Assembly
Constituency.
"
•• 1. the above mentioned candidate assent to this nom'ination and hcreb..-
declare:-
·
(a} that I have completed 49 years of age;
(b) that I am sponsored at this election by the Indian National Co111ress Party;
(c) that the symbols I have chosen are, in order of preference
(i) Two Bullocks with yoke on (ii) .... and
(iii) . . . • x x
• Score out this paragraph, if not applicable.
•• Score out the word not applicable.
(to be filled by the returning ollicfr)
5.
Serial No. of nomination paper
This nomination was delh:cred to
20/1/67 (date by the •candidate/
Dated 20/1,'67.
L3Sup.Cl/68-6
mo at my office at 1.20 P.M. (hour) on
Sd. R.C. Gupta 20/1/67
Returning Officer,
9-Arki Assembly Constituency.
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNEXURE'B'
Form 2-B
!See rule 4)
Nomination paper.
[ 1968] 2 S.C.R.
A
Election to the Legislative Assembly of Himachal
B
Pradesh (State)
I nominate as a candidate for election to the legislative Assembly from the 9-Arki assembly constituency
Candidate's name
Madan Lal
His postal address
Village Parhech P.O. Ghanahati
District :'-•ahasu
His name is entered at Serial No. 504, in pan No. 2
of the Electoral
Roll
for
the
9-Arki
Assembly
Constituency.
My name is Hari Nand and it is entered at serial No.
799 in Part No. 13 of the Electoral roll for the 9-Arkj
Assembly Constitutency.
Date:
20-1-1967.
Sd./ Hari Nand
Signature of proposer.
Decision of Returning Officer accepting or rejecting
the Nomination paper.
I have examined this nomination paper in accordance with section 36 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, and decided as follows :-Rejected.
I .. The above-mentioned candidate.", assent to this nomination •ind hereby
declare:-
(a) that I have completed 49 years of age :
(b) that I am sponso:-ed at this eJcction by the Indian J'\ational Congress
party;
(c) that the symbols I have chosen arc, in order of preference.
(i) Two bullocks with yoke on (ii) ....... ar.d (iii)
•score out this paragraph, if not applicable.
••score out the word not applicable.
Scriai No. of non1ination paper 6
(to bt fill('d by the Returning
Officer)
Thi~ nomination was delivered 10 me at my ,,nice at J. :u p_ ~1.
(hour) on 2u-I-67 (dated) by th,.• cnrdidate,'
Sd. R.(:_ Gupta, Rctu1nin~ OOi.:c:r,
9-:\rki Ass..:1nbly C<1nstit!;,·nc)
c
D
E
F
G
H
~
HIRA SINGH V. MADAN LAL (Hegde, !.)
783
A
The name of the candidate is not entered at SI. No. 504
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
of Part No. 2 of Arki Assembly Constituency Electoral roll; despite opportunity he has not cared to correct the entry.
Date: 21-1-1967.
Sd./ R. C. Gupta
Returning Officer, 21-1-67 3-15 P.M.
9-Arki Assembly Constituency.
,,
In the first nomination paper, the proposer was one Anant
Ram. It was mentioned in the nomination paper that he is the elector shown at serial No. 380 of Part 13 of the Electoral Roll '1f
Arki Assembly Constituency. This was clearly a mistake. His name
is really found at serial No. 380 of Part 23. In the second nonunation paper the candidate is shown as the elector at serial No.
504 of Part 2 of 9-Arki Assembly Constituency; but really his
name is found at serial No. 504 of Part 12 of that Constituency.
Hence the question is whether the grounds on which the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the respondent were
substantial grounds as contemplated by s. 36 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951.
Before we deal with that question, it is necessary to set out
few more facts.
According to the appellant the respondent was
not a genuine candidate; he was a dummy Congress candidate; he
never intended to contest the election.
There is basis for this
contention.
The respondent was the General Secretary of the
Mahasu District Congress Committee. He never applied for any
Congress ticket: nor his name was considered either by the District
Congress Committee or by the Pradesh Congress Committee. He
did not give the contribution required to be given by the candidate!
to the party; nor did he give the security prescribed by the party.
The Congress had selected Mr . .Hari Dass, one of the then Ministers in the Himachal Pradesh Government for contesting the constituency in question.
His nam~ had been recommended by the
District Congress Committee as well as by the Pradesh Congress
Committee. It had been accepted by the Parliamentary Board.
He had paid the necessary subscription. He had also deposited
the prescribed security. It is found from the evidence of the appellant that both Mr. Hari Dass as well as thg respondent went
together to the Returning Officer foc filing their nominations. In
fact it is clear from the order of the Returning Officer that the
appellant had told him that he was only a covering candidate for
Mr. Hari Dass.
It may also be noted that the respondent had
declared that he was a Congress nominee. He had also asked for
the Congress 'ymbols namely a pair of bullocks. It may further
be noted that on the date of the scrutiny, the respondent was
absent and there was nobody to represent him.
Tue Advocate
-·
784
SUPREME COUllT llBPO!lTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R
who represented the Congress organisation did not object to the
rejection of the nomination of the respondent presumably becalllie
no one was interested in his nomination as the nomination of Mr.
Hari Dass had been accepted. Possibly he is now challenging the
election because his party's candidate has been defeated.
At this
juncture, we may notice that the respondent did not even apply
for a copy of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination till the election results were announced. He admitted during his cross-examination that he had acted as the counting agent
of Mr. Hari Dass. It is proved from the evidence of. the appellant
that he actively canva.ssed for Mr. Hari Dass. From the facts and
circumstances established in this case we have no doubt in our
mind that the respondent was at no time a genuine candidate. He
is merely availing himself of the opportunity of the rejection of his
nomination paper for undoing the result of the election.
That. however, is not the end of the matter. All that we have
to consider in this appeal is whether the Returning Officer was
right in rejecting the nomination of the respondent. As mentioned
earlier, the errors found in the nomination papers are purely clerical errors.
The Returning Officer had the duty to scrutinise the
nomination papers when they were presented for finding out whether there were any clerical mistakes in the same.
Under that
provision he was required to find out whether the names of the
candidates as well as their proposers and seconders ·were correctly
mentioned in the nomination papers.
He was also required to
see whether their place in the electoral roll was correctly mentioned
in the nomination papers.
Evidently the Returning Officer failed
in his duty.
Further, when he scrutinised the nomination papers
on January 21, I 967, he had before him all the required information.
It may be that while scrutinising the first nomination paper
(marked as No. 5) he had no material before him to find out whether the proposer of the candidate was really an elector in the
constituency or not; but when he came to the second nomination
paper where the proposer's name as well as his place in the electoral roll is correctly mentioned, it was improper on his part to
have rejected that nomination paper. It is true that in that nomination paper, it had been mentioned that the candidate's name is
found at serial No. 504 of part 2 of 9-Arki Assembly Constituency,
though in fact it is found at serial No. 504 in part 12 of that
constituency; but from the first nomination paper, the Returning
Officer could ·have easily found out the correct part of the electoral roll.
All the required information was before him. Obviously
he rejected the nomination papers for the reason that the respondent was only a dummy candidate but that was not a matter for
him
, decide. If he was a dummy candidate there· was occasion
for Um to withdraw his candidature after the scrutiny of the nominecion papers.
Therefore it is quite clear that the respondent's
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'
-~--
HIRA SINGH v. MADAN LAL (Hegde, l.)
785
A
nomination papers were improperly rejected. Such a. rejection was
impermissible under s. 36 and the same .is a ground for setting
aside the election under s. 100 of the Representation of the People
Act.
B
For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss this appeal but
in the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall
bear their own costs throughout.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.