BIRAD MAL SINGHVI Vs. ANAND PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 18-2-1987 setting aside the election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan from Jodhpur City Assembly Constituency.

(2.) Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan from the constituency No. 183 Jodhpur City was held in the year 1985, nominations papers were filed by 8-2-1985 and the date of scrutiny was 9-2-1985. In all 45 candidates filed their nominations. After scrutiny and withdrawal 21 candidates contested the election, after polling and counting of votes the appellant was declared elected having obtained majority of votes. Anand Purohit, respondent who is an elector in the Jodhpur City constituency No. 183 filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the appellant's election, on the ground that the result of election was materially affected on account of improper rejection of nomination papers of three candidates namely, Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent pleaded that Smt. Umrao Ben was an elector in Sardarpura Assembly Constituency, the returning officer wrongly rejected her nomination paper, without affording opportunity to her to produce a copy of the electoral roll. He further pleaded that Hukmichand, and Suraj Prakash Joshi both were more than 25 years of age on the date of their nomination, yet the returning officer rejected their nomination papers on the ground that they were not qualified to be a candidate as they were below 25 years of age. The appellant contested the election petition. He asserted that Umrao Ben had failed to file a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll of Sardarpura constituency along with her nomination, she further failed to produce copy of the electoral roll at the time of scrutiny and therefore the returning officer rightly rejected her nomination paper. As regards Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi, the appellant pleaded that none of the two candidates was present before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny and since the entries contained in the electoral roll indicated that they were below 25 years of age the returning officer rightly rejected their nomination paper. The appellant further asserted that the rejection of the three nomination papers was proper and the result of the election was not materially affected on account of the rejection of the aforesaid three nomination papers. The High Court held that the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao Ben was validly rejected as she had failed to comply with Section 33(5) of the Act inasmuch as she had failed to produce a copy of the electoral roll or a certified copy of the relevant extract relating to entry of her name in the electoral roll in Sardarpura constituency. The High Court further held that nomination papers of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had been rejected improperly by the returning officer as both the candidates had attained the qualifying age of 25 years on the date of nomination. On these findings the High Court set aside the appellant's election by its judgment and order dated 18-2-1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 116 of the Act.

(3.) The controversy in the present appeal relates to the validity of the orders of the returning officer rejecting the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. We would first examine the validity of the order of the returning officer rejecting Smt. Umrao Ben's nomination paper, which was questioned by the Respondent before us. There is no dispute that Umrao Ben was not an elector in the Jodhpur City Assembly constituency No. 183. She was an elector in Sardarpura Assembly constituency. In her nomination paper she had given the details of the relevant entry contained in the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly constituency, but her nomination paper was not accompanied by a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll of Sardarpura constituency nor she had produced a copy of the electoral roll or the relevant part thereof.. before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. Therefore the returning officer rejected her nomination paper. The High Court held that the returning officer had rightly rejected the nomination paper of Umrao Ben and there was no question of improper rejection of her nomination paper. Shri G. L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent challenged the correctness of the High Court's findings on this question. He urged that since the Returning Officer who was holding the scrutiny of nomination papers relating to the Jodhpur Assembly constituency was also the returning officer of Sardarpura Assembly constituency, he should have verified the entry of Umrao Ben's name from the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly constituency which must have been with him. He urged that Umrao Ben's request to verify entries relating to her name from the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly constituency was ignored by the returning officer, and further her request for grant of time to produce electoral roll was also rejected. He urged that object of Section 35 of the Act was merely to ascertain as to whether a candidate whose nomination paper was scrutinised was an elector or not and since the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly constituency was already with the returning officer he could have verified the entries from that electoral roll. The returning officer had acted in an unreasonable manner in refusing to do that and in rejecting her nomination paper. We find no merit in these submissions.