RATTAN ANMOL SINGH Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appears against the decision of the Election Tribunal at Ludhiana.

(2.) The contest was for two seats in the Punjab Legislative Assembly. The constituency is a double member constituency, one seat being general and the other reserved for a scheduled caste. The first respondent is Atma Ram. He was a candidate for the reserved seat but his nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer at the scrutiny stage so he was unable to contest the election. The successful candidates were Rattan Anmol Singh, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 213-A of 1953, for the general seat and Ram Prakash, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 213-B of 1953, for the reserved. Atma Ram filed the present election petition. The Election Tribunal decided in his favour by a majority of two to one and declared the whole election void. Rattan Anmol Singh and Ram Prakash appeal here.

(3.) The main question we have to decide is whether the Returning Officer was right in rejecting the petitioner's nomination papers. The fact which led him to do so are as follows. The Rules require that each nomination paper should be "subscribed" by a proposer and a seconder. The petitioner put in four papers. In each case, the proposer and seconder were illiterate and so placed a thumb mark instead of a signature. But these thumb marks were not "attested". The Returning Officer held that without "attestation" they are invalid and so rejected them. The main question is whether he was right is so holding. A subsidiary question also arises, namely, whether assuming attestation to be necessary under the Rules, an omission to obtain the required attestation amount to a technical defect of an unsubstantial character which the Returning Officer was bound to disregard under Section 36 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951).