AVADH RAJ SINGH Vs. JUGAL KISHORE GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since we are affirming the conclusion reached by the High Court, there is hardly any need for a long judgment. Even so, the brief facts may be set out to get a hang of the issue agitated before us.

(2.) In May, 1977, there was the General Election to the Constituencies in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly. We are concerned with 34 Anuppur Legislative Constituency. It happened that one Tejraj Dwivedi, an Advocate by profession, was a candidate. He filed his nomination paper but omitted to comply with the requirement of section 33 (5) of the Representation of the People Act (for short, the Act). That provision reads thus:

(3.) Two short questions that call for decision are:whether, as a fact, the candidate Tejraj Dwivedi, did produce a certified copy as required by section 33 (5) and was told that he may take it back (This is the contention put forward by the appellant); and (2) whether, if he did not produce such a certified copy, the defect was of a substantial character resulting in invalidation of the nomination.