# RANJIT SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 543
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-02-08
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar C. J, K. N. Wanchoo, J.C. Shah, s. M. SJKRI, v. RAMASWAMI
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranjit-singh-v-pritam-singh-ors-3596
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Representation of the People A.ct (43 of 1950), s. 33(5)-Requlremenu of section-Copy of electoral roll whether to be filed by candldat•
with each nominaticn paper-Copy of electoral roll of assembly constituency whether can be filed in election for Par/iament-'Part', of electoral
C
roll to be filed-Filing of incomplete copy of 'parf whether defect of
substantial character for the purpose of s. 36( 4).
D
•
F
G
H
The appellant's election to Parliament was challenged by the first respond<lnt on the ground that the nomination papers of the third candidate,
W, had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer and this had mat&-
rially affected the result of the election.
W had filed three nomination
papers with on• only of which he had filed a copy of the electoral roll of
the assembly constituency in purported compliance with s. 33(5) of the
ReprOllentation of the People Act, 1950.
The nomination paper with
which W had filed the said copy was rejected on account of technical
defects;
the other two were rejected because no such copy
was
filed with them. The Election Tribunal dismissed the first respondent's
petition holding that the returning officer had rightly rejected the nomination papers of W. The High Court took the opposite view and set
aside the election.
The appellant came to this Court by certificate and
contended that W had not complied with s. 33(5) because (i) under that
section a copy of the electoral roll must be produced with every nomination paper, (ii) W had filed a copy of the electoral roll of the assembly
CODlltituency and not of the Parliamentary constituency, (iii) the copy
produced was not a complete copy of the relevant 'part' of the electoral
roll.
1
;{,
HELD : ( i) The returning officer was wrong in not looking at the
copy of the electoral roll filed with one of the nomination papers filed
by W when dealing with the other nomination papers filed by him. Section
33(5) does not require that a copy must be filed with each nomination
paper or that any copy should be filed al all, for the candidate is given
the alternative to produce before the returning officer sach copy at the time
of scrutiny. The purpose of filing the copy is to ensure that the returning officer is able to check whether the candidate concerned is qualified
or not and that purpose would be effectively served even if only one copy
is filed with one nomination paper and no copies are filed with the other
nomination papers by the said candidate. [547 F-548 DJ
(ii) The electoral roll for a parliamentary constituency is made up
by stitching together the electoral rolls of the assembly constituencies
comprised therein. Therefore if a candidate files a copy of the electoral
roll of an assembly constituency that copy is sufficient to show that he is
an elector in the parliamentary constituency in which that assembly constitueacy is includecl.
W had filed copy of the assembly constituency in
which he was recorded as an elector and the High Court was right in
rejecting the contention based on the fact that the copy of the roll 9f the
parliamentary constituency was not filed.
[548 G, HJ
544
SUPREME COURT REPOllTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
(iii) Under r. 5 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 it is
provided that "the roll shall be divided into convenient parts which shall
bo numborod conaecutiYely". When 1. 33(5) refora to a copy of the relevant parts of the electoral roll it means a part as defined in r. 5. In
producing not the full part but only a portion of tho electoral roll in
which be wu recorded 81 an elector W did fail to comply with the requirements of s. 33(5). A complete copy would carry the various amend·
menlll made in the roll and enablo the returning officer to see whether
the name of the candidate continued in the roll for the whole of the relevant period.
The High Court waa not right in illl view that the production of an incomplete copy was not a defect of substantial character
which would make tho nomination paper liablo to bo rejected

## Text

•
•
,,
__ ,
A
B
RANJIT SINGH
v.
PRITAM SINGH & ORS.
February 8, 1966
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH,
s. M. SJKRI and v. RAMASWAMI JJ.]
Representation of the People A.ct (43 of 1950), s. 33(5)-Requlremenu of section-Copy of electoral roll whether to be filed by candldat•
with each nominaticn paper-Copy of electoral roll of assembly constituency whether can be filed in election for Par/iament-'Part', of electoral
C
roll to be filed-Filing of incomplete copy of 'parf whether defect of
substantial character for the purpose of s. 36( 4).
D
•
F
G
H
The appellant's election to Parliament was challenged by the first respond<lnt on the ground that the nomination papers of the third candidate,
W, had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer and this had mat&-
rially affected the result of the election.
W had filed three nomination
papers with on• only of which he had filed a copy of the electoral roll of
the assembly constituency in purported compliance with s. 33(5) of the
ReprOllentation of the People Act, 1950.
The nomination paper with
which W had filed the said copy was rejected on account of technical
defects;
the other two were rejected because no such copy
was
filed with them. The Election Tribunal dismissed the first respondent's
petition holding that the returning officer had rightly rejected the nomination papers of W. The High Court took the opposite view and set
aside the election.
The appellant came to this Court by certificate and
contended that W had not complied with s. 33(5) because (i) under that
section a copy of the electoral roll must be produced with every nomination paper, (ii) W had filed a copy of the electoral roll of the assembly
CODlltituency and not of the Parliamentary constituency, (iii) the copy
produced was not a complete copy of the relevant 'part' of the electoral
roll.
1
;{,
HELD : ( i) The returning officer was wrong in not looking at the
copy of the electoral roll filed with one of the nomination papers filed
by W when dealing with the other nomination papers filed by him. Section
33(5) does not require that a copy must be filed with each nomination
paper or that any copy should be filed al all, for the candidate is given
the alternative to produce before the returning officer sach copy at the time
of scrutiny. The purpose of filing the copy is to ensure that the returning officer is able to check whether the candidate concerned is qualified
or not and that purpose would be effectively served even if only one copy
is filed with one nomination paper and no copies are filed with the other
nomination papers by the said candidate. [547 F-548 DJ
(ii) The electoral roll for a parliamentary constituency is made up
by stitching together the electoral rolls of the assembly constituencies
comprised therein. Therefore if a candidate files a copy of the electoral
roll of an assembly constituency that copy is sufficient to show that he is
an elector in the parliamentary constituency in which that assembly constitueacy is includecl.
W had filed copy of the assembly constituency in
which he was recorded as an elector and the High Court was right in
rejecting the contention based on the fact that the copy of the roll 9f the
parliamentary constituency was not filed.
[548 G, HJ
544
SUPREME COURT REPOllTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
(iii) Under r. 5 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 it is
provided that "the roll shall be divided into convenient parts which shall
bo numborod conaecutiYely". When 1. 33(5) refora to a copy of the relevant parts of the electoral roll it means a part as defined in r. 5. In
producing not the full part but only a portion of tho electoral roll in
which be wu recorded 81 an elector W did fail to comply with the requirements of s. 33(5). A complete copy would carry the various amend·
menlll made in the roll and enablo the returning officer to see whether
the name of the candidate continued in the roll for the whole of the relevant period.
The High Court waa not right in illl view that the production of an incomplete copy was not a defect of substantial character
which would make tho nomination paper liablo to bo rejected. Tho nominatiOll papen of W were rightly rejected by tho ro<urning officer though
for dift'eront reasona.
(549 D; 551 E-F)
CI\'IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 459
of
1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
July 14, 1964 of the PuRjab High Court in First Appeal from Ordet
No. 1-E of 1964.
Bishan Narain, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
A
B
c
Narain, for the appellants.
D
S. S. Shukla, for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Wandloo, J, This is an appeal by special leave from the judg·
ment of the Punjab High Court. fn the general election held in
1962 for Parliament (House of the People), the appellant was
elected from the Sangrur parliamentary constituency. Pritam Singh
respondent was also one of the contesting candidates but lost in
the election. Thereupon he tiled an election petition against the
appellant challenging his election on a number of grounds. In
the present appeal we are only concerned with one ground, and that
was that the nomination papers of one of the candidates for the
election, namely, Wazir Singh, had bee11 rejected improperly by the
returning officer. Wazir Singh had filed three nomination papers;
with one of them he had attached a copy of a part of the electoral
roll. He attached no such copy with the otber two nomination
papers. When the nomination papers were being icrutinised, an
objection was taken to the validity of the nomination papers. The
returning officer first took up the nomination paper with which
a copy of part of the roll had been filed and rejected it on the ground
that the name of the parliamentary constituency and the name of the
village and the assembly constituency and the part number of the
electoral roll of the candidate was not mentioned and also because
the name of the parliamentary constituency (House of the People)
of the proposer was not given. After rejecting this nomination
paper, the ,eturning officer took up the other two nomination papers
and rejected them on the ground that a copy of the electoral roll of the
constituency concerned or of the relevant part thereof or a certified
F
G
H
' ..
•
•
•
_,
,
~-·
•
'•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ll,ANJIT SINGH v. J.>lllTAM SINGH (JJ:anchoo, J.)
545
copy of the relevant entries had not been filed along with these
nomination papers. It may be added that the returning officer
refused to look· into the copy of the part of the roll which Wazir
Singh had filed along with his nomination paper which the returning
officer had already rejected before he took up the other nomination
papers.
The main contention of respondent Pritam Singh in the election
petition was that the returning officer was wrong in not looking
into the copy of the part of the roll which had been filed with the
first nomination paper ef Wazir Singh and that merely because that
nomination paper had been rejected, the returning officer was not
precluded from looking into the copy of the part of the roll which
had been produced with that nomination paper for the purpose
of scrutiny of the other two nomination papers. The appellant on
the other hand contended that the nomination papers had been
rightly rejected, and this contention was based on three points
raised on his behalf, namely-(i) that a copy of the electoral roll
of that constituency or a relevant part thereof or a certified copy
of the relevant entries of such roll should have been produced
with each nomination paper separately; (ii) in any case the copy
produced should have been of the parliamentary constituency and
not of the assembly constituency; and (iii) that the copy produced
of the part of the roll was not a complete copy of the part and therefore was not a compliance with the requirements of s. 33 (5) of the
Representation of the People Act, No. 43 of 1950, (hereinafter
referred to as the A,ct).
The Election Tribunal seems to have taken the view that the
copy filed along with the first nomination paper could not be looked
into when the returning officer came to scrutinise the other nomination papers, even if it might be assumed to be a copy of the parliamentary electoral roll. It further held that even if the copy could
be looked into, it was not a complete copy and therefore there was
no compliance with s. 33 (5) of the Act and in consequence the
Tribunal held that the returning officer was justified in rejecting
the nomination papers notwithstanding the provisions of s. 36 (4)
of the Act.
Pritam Singh then went in appeal to the High Court. The
High Court held that the returning officer was wrong in not looking
into the copy which had been produced along with the first nomination paper, and that the copy produced, though it was apparently
of an assembly constituency, could also be taken to be a copy of the
parliamentary roll. Lastly on the question whether the copy produced was a complete copy or not, the High Court held that the
copy actually produced, though it admittedly did not contain certain
pages, was sufficient for the purposes of s. 33 (5) of the Act. lo
this view, the High Court held that one of the nomination papers of
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl %6] 3 S.C.R.
Wazir Singh was improperly rejected and in consequence of that
the result of the election was materially affected. It therefore set
aside the election. The High Court having refused to grant a
certificate, the appellant applied to this Court for special leave
which was granted; and that is how the matter has come before us.
The same three points which were urged before the Tribunal
on behalf of the appellant have been raised before us. In the first
place it is urged that the necessary copy required under s. 33 (5) of
the Act must be produced with every nomination paper, and that
it is not enough where more nomination papers than one are filed
that a copy should have been filed with only one of them. Secondly
it is urged that the copy produced was of the assembly constituency
while it should have been of the parliamentary (House of the People)
constituency. Lastly the argument is that in any case the copy
produced was not complete and therefore there was no compliance
with s. 33 (5) of the Act. The returning officer therefore was
justified in rejecting the nomination paper under s. 36 (2) (b) of the
Act and that s. 36 ( 4) did not apply in the circumstances of the case.
We shall deal with these points seriatim.
Section 32 at the relevant time provided that "any person may
be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat if he is qualified
to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the Constitution
and this Act."-Section 4 (d) of the Act requires that in the case
of any other seat for the House of the People besides those mentioned in els. (a), (b) and (c) of that section, a person has to be an
elector for any parliamentary constituency (House of the People)
to be entitled to stand for election to the House of the People.
It is with this qualification alone that we are concerned in the
present appeal. "Elector" is defined ins. (2) (c) of the Act as meaning
"in relation to a constituency a person whose name is entered in the
electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and
who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in
section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950." Therefore if a person is an elector in a parliamentary (House of the People)
constituency and is not subject to any disqualification he can stand
for election to the House of the People from any constituency.
Then we come to s. 33 (5). The object of this provision obviously
is to enable the returning officer to check whether the person standing for election is qualified for the purpose. The electoral roll of
the constituency for which the returning officer is making scrutiny
would be with him. and it is not necessary for a candidate to produce
the copy of the roll of that constituency. But where the candidate
belongs to another constituency the returning officer would not
have the roll of that other constituency with him and therefore tho
provision contained in s. 33 (5) has been made by ~he lcJ:!islatur.e to
enable the returning officer to check that the candidate ts qualified
A
J •
B
•
•
c
D
•
E
F
G
II
-·
•
•
,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RANJIT SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH (Wanchoo, !.)
547
for .... namg for election. For that purpose
the candidate is
given the choice either to produce a copy of the electoral roll of
that other constituency, or of the relevant part thereof or of a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll before the returning
officer at the time of the scrutiny, if he has not already filed such
copy with the nomination paper. Naturally where the candidate
is standing for a parliamentary constituency (House of the People)
he· will have to file a copy of the roll of some parliamentary constituency. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that under
the proviso to s. 33(6) a candidate is entitled to file upto four nomination papers and therefore when s. 33(5) says that a copy would
be filed with the nomination paper it requires that one copy should
be filed with each nomination paper and if that has not been done
there is no compliance with s. 33(5). Section 33(5) does not
require that a copy must be filed with each nomination paper
for, the candidates is given the alternative to produce before the
returning officer such copy at the time of the scrutiny. So the
candidate need not file any copy with the nomination paper and
it is enough if he has a copy in his possession which he produces
before the returning officer at the time of the scrutiny. Further
there is nothing in s. 33(5) which requires that if a candidate bas
(say) filed four nomination papers be should have four copies
with him to produce before the returning officer at the time ofthe
scrutiny. It would in our opinion be enough if he has one copy
with him at the time of the scrutiny and shows it again and again
as each nomination paper is taken up for scrutiny by the returning
officer. We see no sense in holding that in such a situation the
candidate should arm himself with four copies for the purpose of
showing the copy to the returning officer at the time of scrutiny.
The same copy in our opinion can be produced again and again
before the returning officer as he takes up the scrutiny of each of
the nomination papers filed on behalf of a candidate. If that is
so we see no difficulty in holding that where a number of nomination papers have been filed and a copy has been filed with one of
them, that is enough. Again we see nothing ins. 33(5) which prevents a returning officer from looking at the copy filed with one
nomination paper, even after that nomination paper has been rejected or with a nomination paper which is pending before him for
scrutiny, when he comes to deal with other nomination papers.
As we have said before, the purpose of filing the copy is to ensure
that the returning officer is able to check whether the candidate
concerned is qualified or not and that purpose would be effectively served even if only one copy is filed with one nomination paper
and no copies are filed with the other nomination papers. It may
~e that for certain purposes each nomination paper stands by
itself, but so far as filing of a copy with a nomination paper under
S: ~3(5) is c~:mcerned., we .must look at ~he object be!J!nd the proVISlon, and 1f that object 1s served by filmg a copy with one nomi-
548
SUPRBMB ~URT REPORTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
nation paper, we see no sense in requiring that where a number
of nomination papers are filed there should be a copy with each
nomination paper. There is nothing in s. 33(5) which prevents
the returning officer from looking at a copy filed with a nomination paper which has been rejected or which is still to be scrutinised
for the purpose of satisfying himself when he takes up the other
nomination papers that the candidate is qualified to stand. Nor
has any rule been shown to us which in terms prevents the returning
officers from looking into a copy which has been filed with a nomination paper (which might have already been rejected) for the purpose of scrutinising other nomination papers of the same candidate. If the purpose of s. 33(5) can be served by the production
of one copy at the time of scrutiny when it has not been filed with
the nomination paper, we do not see why that purpose could not
be served by filing a copy with one nomination paper where more
nomination papers than one have been filed by the same candidate. We therefore agree with the High Court that the returning
officer was wrong in not looking at the copy filed with one nomination paper when he was dealing with other nomination papers of
A
B
c
Wazir Singh.
D
This brings us to the second point raised before us, namely,
that the copy filed was not of the parliamentary (House of the
People)
constituency but of the assembly constituency. This
contention also has no force. If we look at the Representation
of the People Act, 1950 we find that Part III thereof provides for
the preparation of electoral rolls for assembly constituencies.
So far as parliamentary constituencies (House of the People) arc
concerned, s. I 3D provides inter alia that the electoral roll for every
parliamentary constituency shall consist of the electoral rolls of
so much of the assembly constituencies as are comprised within
that parliamentary constituency; and it shall not be necessary to
prepare or revise separately the electoral roll for any such parliamentary constituency. It is clear therefore that the electoral
roll for a parliamentary constituency is no other than the electoral
roll for the assembly constituencies comprised within that parliamentary constituency. It is not in dispute that the electoral roll
for a parliamentary constituency is made up by stitching together
the electoral rolls of the assembly constituencies comprised therein.
Therefore if a candidate files a copy of the electoral roll of an assembly constituency, that copy is sufficient to show that he is an elector
in the parliamentary constituency in which that assembly constituency is included. The argument that the copy filed in the present
case did not comply with s. 33(5) as it was not a copy of the parliamentary constituency must therefore fail. The copy was of an
assembly constituency in this case, and if the candidate was an
elector in the assembly constituency he would be an elector in the
parliamentaiy (House of the People) constituency which includes
E
F
G
H
-...
•
•'
•
>
,
'
A
B
•
c
•
D
E
F
•
G
,
H
llANJIT SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH (Wanchoo, J.)
549
that assembly constituency. The High Court therefore was ri~t
in rejecting the contention that the copy of the roll of the parhamentary (House of the People) constituency was not filed.
This brings us to the last point raised on behalf of the appellant,
namely, that the copy filed was not a complete copy and !herefo~e
there was no compliance with s. 33(5) of the Act. It 1s not m
dispute that the copy filed was not a complete copy. The appellant produced a complete copy of that part of the roll and that
showed that pages 19 to 22 and page 25 of that part of the roll
were not filed by Wazir Singh. Now s. 33 (5) gives three options
to a candidate in the matter of filing a copy. He may file either
a copy of the electoral roll which means a copy of the entire electoral roll of the parliamentary (House of the People) constituency,
or a copy of the relevant parts thereof, which means the whole
of the parts concerned. Under the Registration of Electors Rules,
1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it is provided by r. 5
that "the roll shall be divided into convenient parts which shall
be numbered consecutively". Therefore when s. 33(5) refers to
a copy of the relevant parts thereof, it means a part as defined
in r. 5 above. Besides these two alternatives, a candidate has a
third alternative, namely, the production of certified copies of the
entries of his name and the name of the proposer from any roll.
In the present case, the candidate Wazir Singh chose the second
alternative, namely, he produced a copy of the relevant part thereof. The part in question produced in this case was part IV. of the
Simla legislative assembly electoral roll. Section 33(5) therefore
required the candidate (namely, Wazir Singh) to produce the whol1:
of this part. It is not in despute that he did not produce the whole
of this part and the question is whether his failure to do so would
result in the rejection of his nomination paper.
To decide this question it is necessary to refer to the Rules.
Rule IO requires that "as soon as the Roll for a constituency is
ready, the registration officer shall publish it in draft by malcing
a copy thereof available for inspection and displaying a notice
in form 5." Under r. 11, the registration officer is required to give
further publicity to the roll and to the notice in form 5. Thereafter r. 12 provides for claims for the inclusion of a name in the roll
and objections to an entry therein. After such claims and objections
have been made, the registration officer has to consider them
under r. 18. Under r. 19, he gives a hearing if necessary and thereafter he orders the inclusion of names in the roll or exclusion of
names from the roll under r. 20. Then under r. 22, the registration officer has to prepare a list of amendments to carry out his
decisions under rr. 18, 20 and 21 and he may correct any clerical
or printing errors or other inaccuracies subsequently discovered
in the roll. He then publishes the roll together with the list of
55Q
SUPREME COtaT REPORTS
[ 1966) 3 S.C.R.
amendments by making a complete copy thereof available for
inspection, and displaying a notice in form 16. On such publication the roll together with the list of amendments shall be the
electoral roll of the constituency.
The scheme of these Rules therefore, is that a draft is first prepared. Thereafter claims and objections are disposed of. If
any claim is admitted, the name is included in the roll, if any
objection is allowed the name already in the draft roll (or may be
in an earlier amendment) is deleted. This inclusion or deletion is
made by publishing amendments to the roll and thereafter the
draft roll along with one or more amendments becomes the electoral
roll of the constituency. It will be seen from this that where a
name is excluded on an objection being allowed, the name is not
scored out. What the rule provides is that deletion of a name from
a draft or even from an earlier amendment made by inclusion by
the registration officer, is included in the list of amendments published·
Under r. 23, an appeal is allowed from any decision of the regi!tration officer including a name or excluding a name, so that where
the registration officer includes a name after bearing a claim that
is subject to an appeal and the appellate officer may reject the
claim whereupon the amendment made by the registration officer
by including a name may fall through. Under sub r. (5) of r. 23
of the Rules, the registration officer is given power to cause such
amendments to be made in the roll as may be necessary to
give effect to the decisions of the appellate officer. This shows that
when s. 33 (5) requires that a copy of the relevant part of the roll
may be filed or produced the copy is to be a complete copy
along with all amendments, for it may be that even though a name
may be included ;n the first amendment by the registration officer
it may be excluded in the second amendment if the appellate officer
has rejected the claim.
We have already said that the object of producing the copy
under s. 33(5) is to enable the returning officer to check whether
the candidate and the proposer are qualified or not, one for the
purpose of standing and the other for the purpose of proposing.
In order to check this, the returning officer must have a complete
copy of the relevant part. If the copy is not a complete copy it
is possible that a name which may have been included in the draft
or in the first amendment may have been excluded in the second
amendment made on the basis of an order of the appellate officer.
Therefore to enable the returning officer to decide whether, a candidate is qualified to stand or whether a proposer is qualified to propose he must have a complete copy of the relevant part of the roll.
Ifhe has not a complete copy he will not be able to decide.wbe~ber
the candidate or the proposer has the necessary quabficallon.
In the present case it is not in dispute that Wazir Singh did not
produce a complete copy of Part IV of the roll. Part IV consisted
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
> _,.
•
"
>
•
...
•
•
; •
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RANJIT SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH (Wanchoo, !.)
551
of 25 pages; of these Wazir Singh did not produce pages 19 to
22 and page 25. Page 25 as appears from the complete copy of
the roll filed by the appellant contained a second list of amendments.
It is true that Wazir Singh's name did appear in the first amendment
at No. 1853; but that as we have already shown was not conclusive
for the second amendment which was not produced might have
deleted that name. Therefore the copy produced by W azir Singh
not being complete was not sufficient to enable the returning officer
to decide whether he was qualified to stand or not for his name
might have been deleted in the second list of amendments in which
case he would not have been qualified. It is true that in actual
fact it appears from the copy which was produced by the appellant
before the Tribunal that Wazir Singh's name was not deleted in
the second list of amendments; but that appears from the copy
produced by the appellant before the Tribunal and not from the
copy . produced by Wazir Singh
before the returning officer.
Section 33(5) requires that it is the copy produced by the candidate
which should show whether he is qualified or not and for that purpose a copy produced by the candidate should be complete whether
it is of the roll or of the relevant part thereof. To such a case
s. 36( 4) has no application. That provision is to the effect that the
returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the
ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. But
the non-production of a complete copy of the relevant part in
our opinion is a defect of a substantial character for it makes it
impossible for the returning officer to decide whether the candidate
is qualified or not. Qualification for standing for election is a
matter of substantial character. We are therefore of opinion that
the High Court was not right in the view it took that the production
of an incomplete copy of the relevant part was not a defect of a
substantial character which would make the nomination paper liable
to be rejected. The fact that the returning officer rejected the nomination paper on some other ground is of no consequence. If there
was in truth a defect of a substantial character in the matter of
compliance with s. 33 of the Act, the nomination paper was liable
to be rejected, and if it was so rejected, rejection would be proper
whatever may have been the reason given by the returning officer.
In the present case we are of the opinion that the production of
a copy of the electoral roll which is incomplete is a defect of a
substantial character. This defect will invalidate all the nomination
papers. The nomination papers of Wazir Singh were rightly
rejected by the returning officer, though he gave different reasons
for doing so.
The appeal therefore succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs.
The election petition is dismissed. Pritam Singh, respondent, will
pay the costs.
Appeal allowed.