RUDRA PRATAP NARIAN SINGH Vs. BHAGWANDIN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are under Article 226 of the Constitution. They are connected in the sense that both of them arise out of nomination of candidates for election--in one case for the election to the State Legislative Assembly and in the other to the House of the People--and the constitutional point which arises for consideration is common. We propose to decide the two applications together.

(2.) The applicant in civil Misc. Appln. No. 861 of 1951, Sri Rudra Pratap Narain Singh was one of the six candidates for the Kaisarganj North constituency in the district of Bahraich. He is enrolled as a voter in another constituency known as Bahraich West and his case was governed by Sub-section 6 of Section 33, Representation of the People Act (XL II [43] of 1951) which provides that : "If at the time of presentation of the nomination paper the Returning Officer finds that the name of the candidate is nor, registered in the electoral roll of the constituency for which he is the returning Officer, he shall for the purpose of Sub-section (5) require the person presenting the nomination paper to produce either a copy of the electoral roll in which the name of the candidate is included or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such rolls." The copy of the entry filed by Shri Rudra Pratap Narain Singh, was, according to the Returning Officer, not duly certified and his nomination was, therefore, rejected under the powers conferred on that officer by Section 36 (6) of the Act. The candidate challenges the decision on a variety of grounds and in the application before us he has impleaded as opposite party No. 1 his rival candidate at whose instance the objection was moved, and as opposite parties 2 and 3, the Returning Officer of Kaisarganj North constituency and the election officer of Bahraich district. He prays that: (a) This Court should issue orders or writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari or such of them as may be deemed appropriate, (b) Issue in particular orders directing opposite, party No. 2 to refrain pending the petition to allot symbols to the candidates for election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Kaisarganj North constituency and from preparing and publishing the list of valid nominations, (c) Declare that the petitioner was duly nominated, (d) Direct the opposite parties 2 and 3 to include the name of the petitioner in the list of validly nominated candidates, and (e) Direct the opposite parties not to take any action prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner during the pendency of his application,

(3.) In civil Misc. Appln. No. 862 of 1951, the applicant Sri Hargovind Dayal Srivastava bas been duly nominated for the Lucknow District Central Constituency. His grievance is that the nomination of one of his rivals, namely Srimati Vijai Lakshmi Pandit, opposite party No. 1 was in fact invalid for the reasons stated by him and was wrongly accepted in total disregard of the election rules, on a scrutiny held by the Returning Officer Opposite Party No. 2 on 27-11-1951, despite the applicant's objections pointing out the ground of invalidity. It is claimed that the order is manifestly illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and it amounts to a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is accordingly prayed that the record of the proceedings before the Returning Officer be sent for and directions, orders or writs in nature of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari or any of them be issued, that the nomination of Srimati Pandit be adjudged void and ineffective and that the proceedings leading up to the acceptance of her nomination papers be quashed.